2015 (11) TMI 1329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....K. Chowdhury, Advocate ORDER Per : SHRI H.K. THAKUR These three appeals have been filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 156-158/PAT/Cus/Appeal/2011 dated-30/09/2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeal), Patna as first appellate authority under which Order-in-Original No. 4-CUS/ADC/DRI/2011 dated-24/01/2011 by the Adjudicating authority was set aside. 2. Shri S.K. Naskar (A.R.) appearing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lf of the Respondents argued that all the three respondents supplied the goods under proper invoices which were either imported by them or acquired locally at Siliguri. That minor discrepancies in the description of goods cannot be held as an evidence against the appellants in view of the following case laws when proper invoices were accompanying the goods:-  (i) Manish Kumar Jain Vs. C.C. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion in the trading invoices and the bills of entry produced/statements recorded it is the case of the Revenue that seized goods are of smuggled nature. In this regard first appellate authority has correctly held that documentary evidences cannot override the oral statements. In this regard it is observed that CESTAT in the case of Manish Kumar Jain Vs. C.C., Chennai (supra) has also held it to be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...." Similarly in the case of C.C. (P) Mumbai Vs. Askash Enterprises (supra) following observations were made by Bombay High Court regarding burden of proof & smuggled nature of goods:- "6. It is pertinent to note that initially the case of the Revenue was that the seized goods were not the goods imported vide Bills of entry submitted by the respondent. However, on re-verification , the only discr....