TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the appellant, he purchased the said goods from Chennai and the packages came from Chennai is not in doubt. It is findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) that the appellant is one of the recipient of the packages as per the address mentioned on the parcel and he has rightly claimed the ownership of the goods as the same was purchased by him from Chennai - goods are not notified under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came forward to claim the said goods, even though name and address of the respondents was mentioned on the packages, the same were detained and later on seized as no bills could be produced by the owners who later on approached the Custom authorities and claimed the goods. Later on, during the course of investigation, Shri Deepak Kr. Agarwal appeared on 18/6/2010 against the summons and produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oreign origin, the names can be manipulated and therefore, in absence of genuine documents showing licit acquisition and import of goods in question, the goods will have to be treated as illegal import. 4. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, the burden to prove that the goods are smuggle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods, it is noticed that veracity of said challan was never verified by Revenue during the course of investigation. I also agree with the Ld. Advocate that the goods are not notified under Section 123 and therefore, it was incumbent upon the Revenue officials to prove beyond the doubt that the goods procured were smuggled one. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in Revenues appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
