2017 (1) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustom House, Mumbai made a seizure of 19 packages which had arrived by Chennai Express at CST Railway parcel Office, Mumbai on 21.2.2009, under the reasonable belief that they were smuggled in India. The 19 packages contained the wrist watches. These packages had been sent from Chennai to Mumbai by M/s. Ranuja Carriers who were the sub agents of M/s. SMJ Cargo Movers, Chennai. After the seizure, appellant Shri Javed Ansari claimed the ownership of 6 packages out of 19 and submitted the invoice No.775 dated 16.2.2009 showing the purchase of the six boxes from M/s. Srusthi Enterprises, Chennai. Further, he stated that he had booked the said consignment of watches through M/s. Ranuja Carriers, Chennai. Statement of Shri Javed Ansari was record....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice No.775 dt. 16.2.2009 of M/s. Srusthi Enterprises whereunder the appellant was shown as buyer of goods valued at Rs. 1,95,711/-. In the said invoice a VAT Tax at the rate of 12.5% was also charged. (iii) The Invoice/Challan No.33 dt. 16.2.2009 of M/s. Ranuja Carrier, Chennai wherein in the column of supplier it was mentioned Self Chennai and it was consigned to Baba Bhai, Mumbai in respect of six packages. (iv) Government of Tamilnadu, Commercial Tax Department, Form-D, Certificate of Registration with Commercial Tax Department issued on 26.8.2008 whereunder it was certified that M/s. Srusthi Enterprises is a registered dealer under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 with Tin No.33971162200. (v) Form No.1 VAT Monthly Return for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TAT 2015 (325) E.L.T. 250 (All.) 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that it is not under dispute that the foreign brand watches seized, are notified goods therefore the burden to prove that the goods are not smuggled is on the person from whom the goods were seized. In the present case, the appellant is claiming the ownership of the goods contained in 6 cartons. The invoice submitted by the appellant has been verified by the investigating agency and it was fond that so called supplier M/s. Srusthi Enterprises is not existing on the address given in the invoice. In view of this fact the supplier of goods has not been established. All other documents submitted by the appellant, in my view of no help....