1996 (9) TMI 305 - AT - Customs

Revenue's Rectification Application Rejected, Burden of Proof on Department, Show Cause Notice Consideration

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's application for rectification, emphasizing that the burden of proving smuggled goods lay on the department and that ... Rectification of mistake Issues:Rectification of mistake regarding the invocation of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the show cause notice and adjudication order.Analysis:The Revenue filed an application for rectification of mistake, claiming that the Tribunal erred in not recognizing the invocation of Section 123 in the show cause notice and adjudication order. The Tribunal initially held that since Section 123 was not invoked, the burden of proof regarding smuggled goods rested on the department. The Revenue argued that Section 123 was impliedly invoked in the relevant paragraphs of the notice and order. The Counsel for the appellant opposed the application, emphasizing that the show cause notice was not part of the record during the Tribunal's initial proceedings. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision, the Counsel argued that new documents not on record cannot be considered for rectification. The Tribunal considered the arguments and found that the show cause notice was indeed not present during the initial proceedings and was only submitted with the rectification application. Following precedent, the Tribunal concluded that no mistake arose from the non-consideration of the document not on record. Additionally, the Tribunal reiterated that the burden of proving the smuggled nature of goods lay on the department, which had not been discharged. The Tribunal affirmed that Section 123 was not invoked in the adjudication order, leading to the rejection of the rectification application.This judgment primarily dealt with the issue of rectification of mistake concerning the invocation of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the show cause notice and adjudication order. The Tribunal carefully analyzed the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the absence of the show cause notice during the initial proceedings and the subsequent submission of the notice with the rectification application. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions to establish that new documents not on record cannot be considered for rectification. Furthermore, the Tribunal reiterated the burden of proof regarding smuggled goods lying on the department and the non-invocation of Section 123 in the adjudication order. As a result, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's application for rectification, concluding that no mistake arose from the original order.