TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Customs, Patna whereunder proceedings initiated by the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 26.05.2008 have been dropped against all the noticee respondents with consequential relief. 2. Brief facts are that based on intelligence, DRI, Patna with the help of local State Administrative Officers intercepted two trucks at Newada. The consignments carried out by two trucks were of Betel Nuts. Initially the trucks were detained on 06.12.2007 for verification and examination and later on 08.12.2007 the detention was converted into seizure. In respect of the goods namely Betel Nuts weighing 31,120 Kgs. valued at Rs. 31,12,000/-, Revenue's charge is that the said Betel Nuts were of third country origin and were illegally imported in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2007, 13.07.2007, 16.07.2007, 18.07.2007, 19.07.2007 etc. which is other than Tuesday or Saturday the days for haat at Dhupgiri from where the impugned goods claimed to have been purchased. (iv) The goods along with trucks were initially detained on 5.12.2007 and after thorough investigation the detention was converted into seizure on 18.12.2007 on the basis of documentary evidences indicating the smuggled nature of goods. The proprietor of M/s. Surana Trading Co.,; Shri Kamal Kumar Surana has stated in his statement that the goods i.e, betel nut were loaded from their Dhupgiri Office. Shri Surana also could not disclose the name and address of the owner of the godown which he had stated to have hired at Mallpara in Dhupgiri. 5. Ld. Advo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice, did not support the statement made by the noticee respondent Shri Kamal Kumar Surana. The concerned trading license was also found lapsed. The noticee respondent, Shri K.K.Surana could not disclose the name and address of the godown which he had stated to have hired at Mallpara in Dhupgiri. The Adjudicating Authority held that the onus was on the Revenue to prove that the seized goods namely betel nuts were smuggled ones. However, the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the outcome of the investigation made by the Revenue because of which the burden to prove that the goods were not smuggled one shifts from the Revenue to the noticee respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanungo & Co. Vs. Collector of Customs, C....