Page 236 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

458 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

during the course of search, 228 pieces of television sets of ‘Sony’ and ‘Samsung’
were recovered from the premises of the appellant. Revenue made vague allega-
tions against the appellant alleging that these are smuggled-one. In fact, these
television sets are having serial numbers and in the case of Samsung Malaysia, it
was enquired by Revenue regarding whether these television sets with the serial
numbers have been manufactured by them or not. In reply to the query, the same
were answered ‘no’. If that is the situation, Revenue has failed to prove that the
television sets in question are smuggled one. Moreover, the item in question is
not notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the ap-
pellant is not required to prove that these television sets have been procured by
them from licit means. It is the burden on the Revenue to prove that these televi-
sion sets are smuggled-one which Revenue failed to do so. In that circumstances,
I hold that the appellant is neither liable to pay any duty nor these goods are lia-
ble for confiscation. Therefore, no redemption fine and penalty is imposable on
the appellant. In view of the observations I do not find any merits in the im-
pugned order and the same is set aside.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and Pronounced in open court)

_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 458 (Tri. - Chennai)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
[COURT NO. III]
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J) and Shri P. Anjani Kumar,
Member (T)
ZYMONUTRIENTS PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
Final Order Nos. 41574-41580/2019, dated 26-11-2019 in Appeal Nos. C/119-
125/2012-DB
Assessment - Reassessment of Bill of Entry - Speaking order - Assess-
ment done contrary to assessee’s claim and assessee registered protest - There-
fore, in terms of Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962, department under obliga-
tion to issue speaking order - Assessee’s submissions, sustainable - Rejection
of appeals on the basis of time-bar, incorrect - Section 17(5) of Customs Act,
1962. [para 8]
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation - Reassessment - Rele-
vant date - Bills of Entry assessments finalized contrary to claims of assessee
and without issue of speaking order - HELD : By virtue of provision of Section
128(1) of Customs Act, 1962, mere finalization of Bill of Entry itself becomes
order or communication of order - Therefore, appeals required to be filed in
such circumstances within time-period from date of such reassess-
ment/finalization - Section 128(1) of Customs Act, 1962. [para 8]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  236