Page 232 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

278 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

As all the appeals arise from the same impugned order of Commissioner (Ap-
peals), they are being disposed of by a common order.
2. As per facts on record, Commercial Tax Department, U.P. found a
truck loaded with large Cardamom and handed over the same to the Assistant
Commissioner of Central Excise for further action. Three trade opinions were
obtained on 18-11-2016 from the local traders of spices who stated that the im-
pugned goods appeared to be of foreign origin. However the driver of the vehi-
cle in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act deposed that
said consignment was loaded from Silliguri for delivery to Ghaziabad. The ap-
pellant Smt. Pinki Agarwal proprietor of M/s. Khushboo Kirana Store, as her
husband and the caretaker in their statement recorded on 3-12-2016 claimed that
the impugned Cardamom was purchased from local farmers and purchase ledg-
er account showing the purchase of the same were also produced. The trans-
porter in his statement dated 9-2-2017 stated that the consignment was brought
to his Silliguri office by the proprietor Smt. Pinki Agarwal.
3. However, the Customs Authorities initiated proceedings against the
appellant for confiscation of the said goods on the ground that the same have
been illegally smuggled into India as also for imposition of penalties. Show cause
notice stands culminated into an order passed by the Original Adjudicating Au-
thority confiscating the goods and imposing penalties.
4. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Lower Au-
thorities have concluded about the smuggled nature of the goods only on the
basis of trade opinion sought from the local traders. However, he observed that
there is no evidence on record that the goods in question were illegally smuggled
into the Country. For the above proposition, he relied upon the Tribunal decision
in the case of Krishna Das v. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow reported at 2014
(303) E.L.T. 548 (Tri. - Del.). The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is im-
pugned before us.
5. Admittedly, large Cardamom is not a notified item in terms of Sec-
tion 123 of the Customs Act. As such, the onus to prove that the same have been
smuggled lies upon the Revenue and is required to be discharged by production
of sufficient and positive evidence. Merely based upon the trade opinion indicat-
ing the goods to be a foreign origin is not sufficient especially when the appel-
lants have produced the purchase ledger showing the purchase of the same from
local person located in India. Even if the trade opinion is accepted, which in any
case cannot be considered to be an expert opinion, the fact that the Cardamom
may be of foreign origin by itself is not sufficient to hold the same as of smug-
gled nature. For holding the goods as smuggled, Revenue is expected to produce
the evidence to that effect. Revenue in their present appeal has not advanced any
evidence to show that the Cardamom in question was smuggled. In the absence
of the same, we find no justification to interfere in the impugned order of Com-
missioner (Appeals). Accordingly all the appeals filed by the Revenue are reject-
ed. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  248