Page 235 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] SANDEEP BABULAL PUROHIT v. PR. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), PUNE-II 457

2020 (372) E.L.T. 457 (Tri. - Mumbai)
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J)
SANDEEP BABULAL PUROHIT
Versus
PR. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), PUNE-II
Final Order No. A/87392/2019-WZB, dated 13-12-2019 in Appeal No.
C/85597/2019
Television sets of foreign brands - Smuggling of - Recovery of 228
pieces of Sony and Samsung brand TVs bearing serial numbers from
shop/premises of a person who admitted to have not manufactured the same -
Goods having not been notified under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, the
burden to prove that the same were smuggled is on the Revenue and the said
person was not required to prove its licit procurement - Neither duty demand-
able thereon nor the same liable to confiscation - Sections 28 and 111 of Cus-
toms Act, 1962. [para 6]
Appeal allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Suresh Balasubramanian, Advocate, for the Ap-
pellant.
Shri Manoj Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR),
for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order de-
manding 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 course of
search 228 pieces of television of brand name of ‘Sony’ and ‘Samsung’ were
found in their premises which were kept for sale. The Revenue alleges that these
televisions are smuggled-one and appellant has failed to show source of pro-
curement of these televisions. Therefore, they are smuggled-one, demanded duty
from the appellant and held that the goods are liable for confiscation and confis-
cated the same and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and
penalty under the various provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Against the said or-
der the appellant is before me.
3. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the televisions in
question are not notified items under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Therefore, onus is on the Revenue to prove that the items in question are smug-
gled 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,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  235