2004 (12) TMI 250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. The issue relates to seizure of certain non-notified goods from the appellants. The appellants produced certain receipts to the Revenue but the same were found to be bogus on verification. Hence, the goods were absolutely confiscated and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each was imposed on Shri T. Manohar and Shri A.V. Krishnamurthy under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Revenue. In support of her contention, she cited the following decisions - (i) Anil Gupta v. CCE, Kanpur-I — 2001 (135) E.L.T. 358 (Tri. - Del.). (ii) Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad v. R.P. Gangwal — 2004 (163) E.L.T. 391 (Tri. - Mum.). Hence she prayed that the impugned order may be upheld. 5. I have gone through the records of the case carefully. No doubt, the burden to prov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X