TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (7) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28-10-99, the Officers of the Customs Department searched the godown belonging to the appellant and Ball Bearings of foreign origin valued at Rs. 1,11,76,250/- were recovered. As the appellant could not produce th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confiscation. The appellants admitting the recovery of Ball Bearings from his godown. The contention of the appellant is that opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses was denied. Therefore, the impugned order is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. Appellant also relied upon the statements made in the criminal case to submit that there are discrepancies in the statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant failed to produce any evidence regarding lawful possession of the of the goods and it is in his knowledge regarding the nature of the goods. In this situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras and Others v. D. Bhoormull, reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1546 (S.C.) held as under : "It is not correct to say that this is a case of no evidence. While it is true t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion is not intended to relieve the prosecution of the initial burden which lies on it to prove the positive facts of its own case, it can be said by way of generalisation that the effect of the material facts being exclusively or especially within the knowledge of the accused, is that it may, proportionately with the gravity of the relative triviality of the issues at stake, in some special type o....