2020 (2) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r,Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding customs duty and imposing redemption fine and penalty thereon. There are allegation that the goods found in the shop are smuggled one. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on specific information received, on 26/11/2015 the premises of the appellant were searched, during the co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion are smuggled one which Revenue fails to do so. In that situation, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful considerations of the submissions, I find that in this case, during the course of search, 228 pieces of televisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Revenue to prove that these television sets are smuggled-one which Revenue failed to do so. In that circumstances, I hold that the appellant is neither liable to pay any duty nor these goods are liable for confiscation. Therefore, no redemption fine and penalty is imposable on the appellant. In view of the observations I do not find any merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside. 7. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X