Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2021 (11) TMI 490

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Guwahati. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has disposed appeals by seven appellants including the three appellants before us. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] received information and intercepted seven trucks with Betel nuts near Bairabi railway crossing area in Mizoram at Assam - Mizoram border on 01.07.2018 on the suspicion that they were of foreign origin. During investigation, the appellants produced GST invoices and E-way bills to assert that the goods were indeed of domestic origin. Not satisfied with the documents which were provided, DRI seized the consignments along with the trucks and issue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Customs Act, 1962. (vii) That all the appellants in this case were liable for penal action under Section 112 (b) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962". 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the first appellate authority who passed the impugned order rejecting their appeals. Hence, the appellants are before us. We have considered the submissions in the appeals as well as the submissions made by both sides. 4. We find that the goods were undisputedly seized within India at Assam-Mizoram border. The ground for seizure and subsequent confiscation is that the owners/occupants were not able to prove the licit import of the Betel nuts which DRI suspected to be of foreign origin. The GST invoices, E-way bills etc. produced b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng on record to show that the betel nuts were notified under Section 123. Therefore, the appellants had no responsibility whatsoever to prove that the seized betel nuts were not smuggled even if they were of foreign origin. It is for the Revenue to establish that the goods, in question, were smuggled. Smuggling is defined in Section 2 (39) as follows :- (39) "smuggling", in relation to any goods, means any act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111 or section 113"; 'Imported goods' and 'importer' are defined in Section 2(25) and 2(26) as follows :- "(25) "imported goods" means any goods brought into India from a place outside India but does not include goods which have been cle....