TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (6) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order]. - In this appeal the Revenue has disputed the correctness of part of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation of the goods detailed therein. 2.I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the some electronic goods of foreign origin detailed in the impugned order itself were recovered from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at that time, they simply disclosed the name of one Shri Ramesh who delivered the goods to them at railway station, Kanpur. Therefore, the documents could not be accepted. He has also referred to the law laid down in the case of Nazir-Ur-Rahman v. CC, Mumbai reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 493. But in my view this contention of the ld. SDR cannot be accepted. Mere failure on part of the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o finds mentioned in the impugned order itself.  4.The seized goods at the relevant time were not notified and as such no presumption regarding the smuggled nature of the goods, could be drawn under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Moreover recovery of the goods, had been effected at the first instance by the Police from the respondents and later on he handed over the goods to the Customs Aut....