2009 (8) TMI 1009

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 2. The Revenue filed these Appeals against the impugned Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue involved in all the five Appeals is common. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of PVC Pipes, and PVC Resin is their raw material. On 22-12-2005, the Revenue Officials visited the factory premises of the Respondents and found 45 bags of PVC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the Respondents took the plea that the Resins in question were purchased from Delhi, in support of which certain documents were produced by them. On verification, it was found that the suppliers supplied the PVC Resins of Korean origin. The case of the Revenue is that the Respondents failed to show the lawful import of German origin PVC Resins; hence the impugned Order is not sustainable. 4. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s upon the revenue. Onus of proof is different from the burden of proof and we should not confuse the term 'onus' with 'burden'. Burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts but the onus is shifted at every stage in the process of evaluation of evidence. (See A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma reported in AIR 1964 SC 136;)." 6. In this case, the burden of proof tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X