TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (5) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....country. The learned Collector (Appeals) reversed this decision. The present appeal is directed against that decision. 2. The learned JDR, Sri Choudhury, contended that these goods were found lying on the road. He also drew my attention to the observations of the learned Deputy Collector to the effect that the circumstances have to be analysed and viewed, in the context of generally what happens at the border. It was also stated in the order by the learned Deputy Collector that, it is a fact that such items are smuggled across the border, and in many cases the goods are just left on the roadside to be smuggled out of the country stealthily depending upon the opportunity. The Deputy Collector also observed that in such cases even if ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chatterjee appearing for the respondent, contended that the respondent had produced all the bills and vouchers for purchase of the goods in question. He also contended that the transport voucher from the transport company was also produced by the respondent, when he made the claim before the A.C. He also contended that when the goods were being transported in the lorry, these were forcibly taken out by the B.S.F. officers and he disputed the fact that those were found lying by the roadside. He also contended alternatively that the facts and circumstances of this case will not show that there was an attempt to export these goods out of India. In this connection he relied on the following decisions : (a) 1986 (26) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, in fact, taken out from the truck by BSF forcibly as alleged by the respondent. So what he disputes is that there is no evidence to show that the goods were taken forcibly from the truck. He does not dispute in the order that the goods were not actually taken in the truck. No investigation is made in this behalf to contradict the claim of the respondent. He had produced the necessary documents, and when such documents are produced by the respondent, some investigation should have been made to show that actually these goods were not taken in the truck. What is disputed in the order is that the respondent has not produced evidence to show that these goods were not shown to have been taken by force from the truck. It is no doubt true that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdship that the movement could as well be within the territory of India. But there should be movement of the goods. Otherwise, the very concept of taking out will have no meaning. In this case, admittedly, the goods were stationary. Even if the respondent has not established by submitting evidence that they were taken forcibly from the truck, by BSF officers, there is nothing to show that the goods were in movement. Suppose if the goods were found in movement pointing towards the border and there was no other explanation to be furnished by the respondent with respect to that movement, then a presumption may be drawn that the movement was towards the border. In this case that evidence is lacking. The learned Counsel placed reliance on a deci....