9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant filed these appeals against the orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). As the common issue is involved in these appeals, they are taken up together. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3-12-02, the residential premises of Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma and Anil Kumar were searched by the Customs Officers and from the residence premises of Shri Pawan Kumar, 102 pcs. of assorted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The contention of appellant is that mobile phones and parts thereof are not smuggled goods. These goods are freely available in the market. The contention is also that the goods in question are not notified under Section 125B of Customs Act, therefore, the onus of the revenue to show that seized goods are smuggled goods. There is no evidence on record even there is no allegation on the part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The contention of the appellant is that in the above decisions of the Tribunal, it is held that merely because goods are in trade quantities and they are foreign marking on foreign goods that by itself cannot lead to an inference that goods have been smuggled into India in absence of any Notification under Section 123 of Customs Act. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that 102 mobile phones ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Act. In this situation the onus on Revenue to prove that goods in question are smuggled goods in nature. Revenue has not produced any evidence to show that goods in question are smuggled into India. Even in the statement recorded by the revenue at the time of seizure, the appellant never admitted the fact that the goods in question are smuggled into India. Merely on the ground that goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
