Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 201 - CESTAT NEW DELHISeizure of betel nuts - Identification of Betel nut - Expert opinion - Levy of Penalty - Held That:- The said expert person, gave his opinion about the foreign origin of the goods on the basis of visual examination of the betel nuts - However, no final opinion as regards the country of origin has been given by him - Relying upon Dinanath Maurya vs. CC Lucknow [2000 (11) TMI 580 - CEGAT, KOLKATA] - Tribunal has observed that opinion of a local shopkeeper cannot be held to be an expert opinion and does not prove the foreign origin of the goods, beyond doubt - The Revenue in the present case apart from relying upon so called expert opinion as regards the foreign origin of the goods have not produced any evidence to establish the smuggled nature of the goods - It is not the case of the Revenue that betel nuts of foreign origin are not legally imported into India and the same are not available in the open market - As such, in the absence of any evidence to show that betel nuts in question were actually smuggled, the confiscation of the same cannot be upheld. Act of Cheating - Fake documents – Unverified documents - Non-maintenace of accounts - Held That:- Assessees have produced the Challan form ‘M’ issued by Assam State Agriculture Marketing Board showing the purchase of betel nuts in question - Merely because the two different consignments of betel nut were purchased on two different dates, prior to the transportation of the same will not make such documents as fake - No verification of the said documents have been made by the department from the Assam State Agriculture Marketing Board - Betel nuts do not carry any identification marks so as to relate the consignment to be document produced by the appellants - As such, in the absence of any inquiry made by the Revenue from the issuing authority, Assam State Agriculture Marketing Board, rejection of the same on the sole ground that appellants have not maintained any accounts and held the said documents to be fake, is not proper on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) – Thus, the impugned order are set aside – Decided in favour of assessee.
|