Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2003 (3) TMI 106 - SC - CustomsWhether the goods could be said to be regenerated second grade MMM? Held that - The burden of proof was on taxing authority to show that imported goods were not regenerated second grade MMM. Mere assertion by the department was of no avail as heavy burden was on the department to lay evidence that the test reports which were given by the Government Institutions were incorrect or erroneous. No such attempt was made and the test carried out before the Commissioner (Appeals) by IIT Expert revealed that the contention of the appellant was justified. An important fact overlooked by the Tribunal is that because of an earlier report of the CRCL with respect to the Delhi consignment to the effect that it was unable to test the samples for regenerated second grade MMM the department had sent samples from the Delhi consignment to the IIT Delhi and the IIT Delhi vide its report dated 18-7-1996 had opined that the goods were of regenerated second grade quality. This report had been placed on record. The CEGAT accepted the fact that the goods forming part of the Delhi consignment were identical to the goods in question that is goods of the Ludhiana consignment. This IIT report left no scope to sustain the stand of the department. In our view the report obtained at the instance of the department itself had great force and it should not have been ignored. It is important to note that the report of the CRCL New Delhi relied upon by the department does not unequivocally state that the goods were not regenerated second grade MMM. The report is carefully worded and gives an impression that something is sought to be concealed rather than truth being revealed. The onus is on the department to establish that it is a case of mis-declaration of goods. The department has miserably failed to discharge that onus in the present case. Therefore we are unable to sustain the stand of the department. The impugned judgment of the CEGAT cannot be upheld. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The order of the Commissioner of Customs Amritsar is restored.
|