TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seized betel nuts and also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2.00 lakh each upon the appellant Shri Jay Jayram Yadav, Shri Jagarnath Yadav and Shri Murli Sandik under Section 125 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Adjudicating Authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- upon each of the appellant under Section 112(b)(ii) and also demanded duty under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 from the appellants. 2. Shri Nihar Dasgupta (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that all the three appeals have originated from the same OIO and may be taken up together. Learned Advocate submitted that Tangla Police Station recovered 521 bags containing 41,150 kgs of Dry Betel Nuts from platform No.1 of Tangla Railway Station on 05.06.2015....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eventive), W.B.,Calcutta-vs.-Dungarmal Mohata [2006(200) E.L.T.522(Cal.) 3. Shri S.N.Mitra AC(AR) appearing for the Revenue argued that appellants could not produce any trade license or sale/cash memo regarding purchase of seized goods and that Form M and Form-K relied upon by the appellants do not correspond to the goods recovered/seized. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The only issue required to decided in these appeals is whether 521 bags of betel nuts recovered by Tangla Police Station at Tangla Railway Station, later seized by the customs authorities, are of foreign origin and smuggled into India. There is no statement in the show cause notice dt. 01.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecords that under similar factual matrix CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Maqsood ALam vs.- Commr. of Customs, Lucknow (Supra) has allowed an appeal of the appellant by making the following observations in paragraph-4: "4. The core issue to be decided in the present appeals is whether the impugned goods were of foreign origin and were smuggled. It is seen that betel nuts are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the onus to prove that the goods are of foreign origin and are smuggled is squarely on Revenue and this onus cannot be discharged merely on the basis of suspicion. Neither in show cause notice nor in adjudication order any evidence has been produced as to from where the goods have been smuggled and wha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... betel-nuts to various customers and cannot be reasonably expected to remember whether the impugned goods were sold by them or not. In any case, an opinion based on visual examination of betel-nuts cannot be accorded a legal force to sustain the allegation of smuggling as has been held by various judicial pronouncements. In the case of CC (Preventive) v. Dugarmal Mohata [2006 (200) E.L.T. 522 (Cal.)], the Kolkata High Court held that trade opinion cannot form the basis or foundation to establish the fact that seized betel nuts were either of smuggled character or were of foreign origin and smuggled into India from Nepal. In the case of CC (Preventive) v. Raj Kumar Jaiswal [2006 (204) E.L.T. 561 (Cal.)], the Kolkata High Court observed that ....