Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs, Patna vs Shri Manoj Kumar on 31 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.Cus.Ap.159/09
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.04/Pat/Cus/Appeal/2009 dated 23.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs, Patna.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HON'BLE SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE PRESIDENT
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
Commissioner of Customs, Patna
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Shri Manoj Kumar
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Sharma, Authorized Representative(JDR) for the Revenue Shri N.K. Chowdhury, Advocate for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri S.S.Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing/Decision :- 31.07.2009 Date of Pronouncement :- 31.07.2009 ORDER NO............................................................................
Per Shri S.S.Kang.
1. Heard both sides.
2. Revenue filed this Appeal against the impugned order whereby the confiscation of betel nuts were set aside on the ground that the betel nuts are not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act and burden is on the Revenue to show that the betel nuts are smuggled into India and the burden has not been discharged.
3. Another issue raised by the Revenue is that the adjudicating Authority in the impugned order after going through the facts and circumstances of the case as the seized betel nuts were claimed by the present Respondents after four months, rejected the claim of the present Respondents regarding ownership of 45 bags. Contention of Revenue is that there is no finding in the impugned order in respect of this aspect.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that they had sufficient evidence on record to show that the Respondent is the ownership of the goods and the record was produced before the adjudicating Authority.
5. I find that in the impugned order the Commissioner(Appeals) after taking into consideration the various decisions held that in case of non-notified goods burden is on the Revenue to show that the goods are smuggled into India. But there is no finding regarding the claim of the present Respondent which was rejected by the adjudicating Authority hence the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) to look into this aspect also. The Commissioner(Appeals) will pass a fresh order in this regard after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) sd/ (S.S.KANG) VICE PRESIDENT sm 3 Appeal No.Cus.Ap.159/09