TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Confiscation order overturned due to lack of proof, burden shifted to Revenue.</h1> <h3>Neeta Prakash Modi Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai </h3> Neeta Prakash Modi Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai - 2012 (283) E.L.T. 257 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:- Confiscation of diamonds under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962- Allegation of smuggling against deceased husband- Failure to verify genuineness of purchase vouchers- Appeal against absolute confiscation and penalty imposition- Submission of relevant documents by appellant- Burden of proof on Revenue for illicit purchase- Lack of corroborative evidence by Revenue- Legal principles regarding burden of proof in seizure casesAnalysis:1. Confiscation of diamonds under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962:- The case involved the absolute confiscation of diamonds weighing 154.04 carets under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, based on allegations of smuggling against the deceased husband of the appellant.2. Allegation of smuggling against deceased husband:- The deceased husband of the appellant, engaged in the purchase and sale of cut and polished diamonds, was accused of smuggling diamonds into India, leading to the seizure of diamonds from his office premises.3. Failure to verify genuineness of purchase vouchers:- The Tribunal set aside the confiscation order due to the Commissioner's failure to verify the genuineness of the purchase vouchers produced by the assessee, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication.4. Appeal against absolute confiscation and penalty imposition:- The appellant challenged the absolute confiscation of the seized diamonds, arguing that the purchases were bona fide and supported by relevant documents, while contesting the legality of the confiscation without proper basis.5. Submission of relevant documents by appellant:- The appellant submitted purchase vouchers, sales tax registration, Import and Export code, and RBI code documents to prove the legitimacy of the diamond purchases, emphasizing that all relevant documents were provided at the time of seizure.6. Burden of proof on Revenue for illicit purchase:- The appellant contended that the burden of proving illicit purchase rested with the Revenue, citing legal precedents where the burden to establish smuggling of non-notified goods was on the Revenue.7. Lack of corroborative evidence by Revenue:- Despite allegations of smuggling, the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence to prove illicit purchase of the seized diamonds, relying mainly on the initial statements of the deceased husband.8. Legal principles regarding burden of proof in seizure cases:- The Tribunal emphasized the legal principle that in seizure cases involving non-notified goods, the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish illegal importation, and the inability to produce documents showing legal importation does not automatically prove smuggling.9. Conclusion:- After detailed analysis, the Tribunal found that the appellant had successfully demonstrated the bona fide nature of the diamond purchases through the submission of relevant documents, while the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove illicit purchase. Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 