TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods are of smuggled nature. In this regard first appellate authority has correctly held that documentary evidences cannot override the oral statements. In this regard it is observed that CESTAT in the case of Manish Kumar Jain Vs. C.C., Chennai (2008 (3) TMI 574 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) has also held it to be so. So far as discrepancies in matching the details of the seized goods with the documents produced by the Respondents is concerned, following has been held by Bombay High Court in C.C. (P) Vs. Mahendra Singh Purohit (2007 (8) TMI 358 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY) - Revenue has only raised suspicion on the origin of seized goods but has not discharged the burden as to how seized goods were of smuggled nature when Respondents have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first appellate authority may be set aside and order passed by the Adjudicating authority may be restored. 3. Shri N.K. Chowdhury (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Respondents argued that all the three respondents supplied the goods under proper invoices which were either imported by them or acquired locally at Siliguri. That minor discrepancies in the description of goods cannot be held as an evidence against the appellants in view of the following case laws when proper invoices were accompanying the goods:- (i) Manish Kumar Jain Vs. C.C. Chennai reported in 2008 (229) ELT 266 (Tri-Chennai) (ii) C.C. (Preventive) Vs. Mahendra Singh Purohit reported in 2008(225) ELT 426 (Bombay) (iii) C.C. (P), Mumbai Vs. Aakash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that even if the duty paying documents produced by the respondent did not tally with the description of the goods, still the onus was on the revenue to discharge the burden by producing positive evidence. The Tribunal has held that in the absence of such evidence, the confiscation order cannot be sustained. Similarly in the case of C.C. (P) Mumbai Vs. Askash Enterprises (supra) following observations were made by Bombay High Court regarding burden of proof smuggled nature of goods:- 6. It is pertinent to note that initially the case of the Revenue was that the seized goods were not the goods imported vide Bills of entry submitted by the respondent. However, on re-verification , the only discrepancies that were found were re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
