TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (5) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sized yarn. On the basis of an information, the officers of Customs visited their units and found 300 cartons of imported polyester yarn having "HAULON" marka weighing 7800 Kgs. which was admittedly received by the appellants without cover of any duty paying documents from an 100% E.O.U. by the name of M/s. Mill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to them which were not considered by the adjudicating authority and have been brushed aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was submitted that even though the Commissioner (Appeals) has admitted that they were not importer of the yarn still he has chosen to demand duty from them as they have redeemed the goods. It was contended that they have taken the provisional release of the goods consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore the burden of proof is on the person from whose possession goods are seized. The appellants have failed to produce any evidence to establish that the goods were duty paid and hence the goods have been correctly confiscated and the redemption fine imposed. 5. I have considered the submissions of both sides. I find that in this case 4800 Kgs. of yarn on cheeses was recovered from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Customs Act, 1962. 6. So far as demand of duty is concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly held that since the appellants are not the importer, duty is not demandable from them. However, since they were in the possession of the goods and have exercised their option to redeem the goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, the necessary consequences have to follow and ....