TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) and on payment of duty. In addition personal penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) has been imposed under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Shri D.K. Saha, ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is a trader in ball bearings and buys the same fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ready disclosed by the appellant at the time of seizure he purchases the goods from various parties who come to him and issue the bills. The appellant was not in a position to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the bills issued by the said persons. He submits that in any case the said factor does not ipso facto lead to the inevitable conclusion that the ball bearings in question are smuggled e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 123 and it is for the Revenue to prove that the goods are smuggled. The Tribunal in the case of Chandrakant U. Saha v. CC [2000 (123) E.L.T. 730 (T) = 1999 (34) RLT 825 (CEGAT) has held that the fact of alleged supplier firm being non-existent or disclaimer by the person, who sold the goods in question may raise suspicion, but cannot take the place of evidence to show smuggled character of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of seller being a fictitious firm cannot shift such burden on the appellant and the Revenue cannot be said to have discharged the burden placed upon it. In the present case also I find that there is no evidence produced by the Revenue reflecting upon the contraband nature of the ball bearings in question. Admittedly ball bearings are non-notified items either under the provisions of Chapter IVA or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
