2015 (5) TMI 131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at Rs. 13,46,400/- was confiscated, (ii) truck No.UP 78 BT-0484 valued at Rs. 10 lakhs was confiscated and ordered to be released on redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and (iii) penalties on the following persons of amount mentioned against each of them were imposed:- (i) Shri Maqsood Alam Rs.1,00,000/- (ii) Shri Javed Ahmad Rs.1,00,000/- (iii) Shri Ratan Kumar Agarwal Rs.1,00,000/- (iv) Shri Sarfraz Khan Rs.1,00,000/- (v) Shri Nayaz Khan Rs.1,00,000/- (vi) Shri Djriv Dev Dubey Rs.50,000/- (vii) Shri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Rs.1,00,000/- (viii) Shri Baijnath Yadav Rs.50,000/- (ix) Shri Mahadev Bach Rs.25,000/- (x) Shri Ramchandra Rs.10,000/- (xi) Shri Ayaz Khan Rs.5,000/- The facts briefly stated are that the Cus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the goods as well as the NCCF persons after visual examination stated that the impugned goods were not of the kind sold by them. Having regard to these evidences, the adjudicating authority passed the order as mentioned above. 2. The appellants have contended that M/s. Bahubali Attractions Pvt. Ltd., bought the goods in the month of April, 2008 and the said goods as per the invoice of the cooperative societies were sold by the NCCF in the month of March, 2008 and M/s. Bahubali Attractions Pvt. Ltd. sold the goods to M/s. J. Maqsood & Co in the month of May, 2008 and it is not possible for anyone after so long to claim merely on visual examination that the goods are not the same as were sold by them. They stated that M/s. Bahubali Attractio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wo cooperative societies, which in turn had bought the goods from NCCF and the cooperative societies have mentioned the invoice numbers of NCCF under which the goods were bought by them (i.e., the cooperative societies). The adjudicating authority has essentially relied on the visual opinion of the customs authorities that the goods are similar to the goods which are smuggled from Nepal and statements of the cooperative society and NCCF personnel given after visual examination of the impugned goods that they are not those sold by them. There is force in the appellants' contention that the goods were sold to NCCF in the month of March, 2008, which in turn were sold by the cooperative societies in the month of April, 2008 and were further....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....006 (205) ELT 23 (Bom.)], the Bombay High Court observed that the Tribunal's finding that in cases of non-notified goods, burden lies on Revenue to prove illegal entry into country is correct and that the burden lay on the Department to produce some material/evidence to establish that seized goods were smuggled goods. Similarly, in the case of CC (Preventive), Mumbai Vs. Shri Ganesh Enterprises [2006 (199) ELT 208 (Bom,)] , the High Court reiterated that the burden lay on the Department to produce some material/evidence to establish that seized goods were smuggled goods. 5. Thus the opinions that the goods are of foreign origin based on visual examination are totally insufficient to quasi judicially arrive at a finding that the goods a....