9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aded from Delhi for being transported to Ahmedabad, was intercepted by Sales Tax Department at Jaipur in the month of July, 2014 (night of 1st and 2nd July). It appeared to the officers of Commercial Tax Department that several goods inter alia electronic goods, namely LCD, LED TV and Chinese made mobile phones, alongwith other parchooni goods were being transported without proper invoice/ challan or documents. The Sales Tax Officer detained the vehicle and the goods and after taking the custody got the truck parked at High Court circle, at Jaipur. The sales Tax Officers assessed the goods to Sales Tax pursuant to enquiry and recording of statement(s) holding that the goods have been purchased and sold within India (in the State of Rajastha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 LED TVs. Statement of Sh. Bhavesh Parnami was recorded on 03.11.2014. 3. Another letter was received from Sh. Jagdish Bhai alias Nilesh Bhai dt. 17.09.2014 by the Customs that he has booked 16 LED TVs for transport from Delhi to Ahmedabad with Sri VGFC, this he has purchased under Tax Invoice dt. 01.07.2014 from M/s S. K. Trading Company, Delhi. 4. Further statement of Sh. Kamlesh G. Chandwani, Partner of Sri VGFC was recorded on 03.11.2014, wherein he inter alia stated that the owner of mobile phones seized by the Department is Sh. Dharmesh Kumar B. Bhavsar, Ahmedabad (appellant). 5. On summons, Sh. Niraj Agarwal S/o Sh. Pawan Agarwal, Manager of Sri VGFC appeared before the Customs officer on 02.01.2015 and his statement was recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nership. Further, the invoices etc. submitted by the truck Driver and transport company in respect of the mobile handsets, appeared to be bogus or fake. Further, observed that inspite of information given to the consignee Sh. Dharmesh B. Bhavsar in December, 2014 he has not turned up to claim the goods. As the appellant did not turn up to claim the goods, under the aforementioned facts, the mobile phones appears to be of smuggled nature and liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. It further appeared to the Customs Department that the owner of the mobile handsets was the appellant in view of the no objection certificate issued by the transporter in his favour. Show cause notice dt. 28.01.2015 was issued requiring the transporter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was rejected. However, the show cause notice was amended to the effect that the appellant is free to furnish evidence in order to support legal import of the said mobile phones. Further, this appellant was required to show cause as to why 2287 pcs. of Chinese origin mobile handsets be not confiscated under Section 111(b) & (d) and penalty under Section 112(b) and under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. This appellant contested the show cause notice by claiming ownership of the mobile handsets of Chinese origin stating that the same was purchased in cash from the open market in Delhi. Further the claim is duly supported by 'No Objection Certificate' issued by Sri VGFC (transporter). 10. The Joint Commissioner observed in the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 112(b)(ii) and Rs.20,000/- under Section 114AA. Penalty was also imposed on the transporter among others. 11. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the order-in-appeal was pleased to reject the appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant Sh. N. K. Tiwari assailing the impugned order inter alia urges that the appellant had led sufficient evidence showing the purchase of mobile handsets from open market in Delhi. Admittedly, it is a case of town seizure as the goods were admittedly being carried by the transporter from Delhi to Ahmedabad. Further, urges that the Customs Department had not brought any evidence on record in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant from open market in Delhi. Such contention is also supported by the statement and evidence led by the transporter. Appellant have also produced documents of transport before the Tribunal as well as the bilties that the goods were being transported from Delhi to Ahmedabad. Further, appellant had appeared before the Customs Department and had claimed the goods. Admittedly, no other person has claimed the goods in question. I further find that in view of admitted town seizure, it was the onus on the Customs Department to lead evidence in support of allegation as to the smuggled nature of goods. I also find from the record that no evidence has been brought on record in support of its allegation. Further, sale-purchase of goods in India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
