TMI Blog1992 (4) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le frames and lenses. They have been purchasing these articles from different sources on regular vouchers. During a search of their shop on 8-5- 1990, 667 spectacle frames of a market price of Rs. 2,77,850/- were seized by the ^ Customs authorities on the ground that the appellants did not produce any evidence, documentary or otherwise, of lawful import/acquisition/possession storage/sale/purchase of these goods of foreign origin. During investigation, the appellants produced numerous bills of a number of parties showing purchase of spectacle frames from them and as many as 12 such bills covering 393 pieces spectacle frames were found to be genuine and these spectacle frames were ordered to be released by the Additional Collector of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for the appellants, Shri L.P. Asthana, the learned Counsel submitted that the fact is that the bills submitted by the appellants did not tally with the particulars of 274 pcs. spectacle frames, but it does not mean that the bills were not genuine. Moreover, in the absence of any such allegation in the show cause notice, it was not permissible for the adjudicating authority to draw the conclusion that the bills were not genuine. In fact, the same adjudicating authority had found that in the case of as many as 12 suppliers of spectacle frames to the appellants, the bills produced had been accepted because the particulars tallied. 3. Shri Asthana also stated that the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 relating to burden of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of Central Excise, New Dam [1985 (22) E.L.T. 186], Tarlochane Singh Surie v. Collector of Customs Central Excise, Shillong [1985 (21) E.L.T. 521], and Arvinder Singh Kocher v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1986 (26) E.L.T. 792]. He also referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Another v. Collector of Central Excise Customs, Kanpur Another [1984 (15) E.L.T. 400]. 4. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Amba Lal s case, Shri Asthana submitted that in the case of Kanungo Co. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta Others [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1486 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court had indicated the circumstances when the burden of proof shifts from the Customs authorities to the offender. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
