Burden of proof for non-notified seized goods must be decided on merits when ownership has already been accepted.

Where seized goods are treated as owned by the appellant in the adjudication order, the appellate authority cannot reject the appeal on a contrary premise that ownership was denied. The accepted finding on ownership, especially where part of the seized goods was released and no Revenue challenge was made to that finding, required the appeal to be considered on its merits. The substantive issue whether the goods were non-notified items, and therefore whether the burden to prove smuggled character lay on the Revenue, had to be adjudicated afresh. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of that burden-of-proof question.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the appellant had denied ownership of the seized goods, and whether the matter required reconsideration on the question of burden of proof in respect of non-notified goods.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had itself accepted the appellant's ownership by releasing part of the seized goods, and no challenge had been laid by the Revenue to that finding. In those circumstances, the appellate authority could not reject the appeal on the basis of an alleged ownership dispute. The appellant's substantive contention that the goods were non-notified items and that, therefore, the burden of proving smuggled character lay on the Revenue required adjudication by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal on the ground of ownership was unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the appellant's contention regarding non-notified goods and burden of proof.

Ratio Decidendi: Where ownership of seized goods has been accepted in adjudication, an appellate authority cannot deny relief on a contrary ownership finding and must decide the substantive statutory burden of proof issue on its merits.

---