TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the allegation that the goods were cleared under DEEC Licence availing the benefit of Customs Notification and not paying customs duty on the goods. The proprietor of the respondents in his statement stated that the goods were purchased from various parties and from the statement the department could not bring out that he has admitted that the goods were illicitly imported. The Revenue also could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 5-11-2003 whereby he has set aside the lower adjudicating authority s order. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that while acting on the information that some importers of Chennai are importing stainless steel coils sheets under DEEC Licences (Actual User Condition) claiming the benefit of Notification No. 30/97-Cus. at Chennai Port and diverting the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods on payment of fine of ₹ 70,000/-. He also imposed penalty of ₹ 20,000/- under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents challenged the same before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who after finding that the department could not show that the goods were illicitly imported, set aside the order passed by the lower adjudicating authority. Hence the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t stated that the goods were purchased from various parties and from the statement the department could not bring out that he has admitted that the goods were illicitly imported. The Revenue also could not produce any evidence that the goods were illicitly imported and therefore, the onus was on the department to prove the smuggled nature of the goods which the department could not produce nor the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
