9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Video camera with accessories was seized from the appellants and was confiscated absolutely in adjudication proceedings. However, no penalty was imposed. The orders of confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(p) were upheld in toto by the Collector (Appeals) resulting in the present appeal before the CEGAT. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate, arguing for the appellants stated that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He requested for redemption of the goods on [payment of] fine. 3. Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, stated that the citation of the other order of this Collector was not relevant. He stated that the appellants had initially claimed to have purchased the goods from one Mr Makhija who denied this statement. Much later after nearly 7 months by way of reply to the Show Cause Notice, the appellants had clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders for confiscation made under this provision are upheld. However, the lower order does not disclose any grounds to sustain the confiscation under 111(d) of the Act. Unless any goods are notified under Section 123, the burden of proving their illegal importation rests on the Department. Such confiscation cannot be based merely on the fact that the person from whom the goods have been seized has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
