TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted by the appellant, in my view of no help to the appellant for the reason that when the supplier is not existing at the address given in the invoice then there is no need to go into other documents. I am therefore of the view that since the appellant could not discharge the burden that the goods seized is other than the smuggled goods, the goods have been rightly confiscated absolutely, which is upheld. Imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- - Held that: - the penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- imposed on the appellant appears to be on higher side, hence, the same needs to be reduced. I therefore reduce the penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 40,000/-. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 dt. 13.8.2009 was issued to the appellants. The case was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, R I who ordered for absolute confiscation of the wrist watches valued at ₹ 21,89,035/- under Section 11(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- on M/s. Javed Ahmad Ansari under Section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant field an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be rejected vide the impugned order, therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Shri A.M. Sachwani, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned goods are not smuggled goods and are not liable for confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been proved that 6 cartons of wrist watches purchase by the appellant legitimately under the cover of VAT invoice. Therefore the burden of proof that the goods have been indigenously purchase and it is not smuggled, has been discharged by the appellant. 4. On the other hand, Shri D.S. Maan, Ld. Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that as regards the documents referred by the Ld. Counsel to prove the genuineness of the purchase, the same has not been established for the reason that on the basis of invoice submitted by the appellant before the investigating agency. The investigating agency has conducted a verification and it was found that M/s. Srusthi Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven in the invoice then there is no need to go into other documents. I am therefore of the view that since the appellant could not discharge the burden that the goods seized is other than the smuggled goods, the goods have been rightly confiscated absolutely, which is upheld. It appears from the orders of both the lower authorities that penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant, taking into consideration the confiscation of 19 packages of wrist watches which is valued at ₹ 21,89,035/- however the appellant claimed the ownership of only 6 cartons. Therefore the penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- imposed on the appellant appears to be on higher side, hence, the same needs to be reduced. I therefore reduce the penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
