RAJESH PAWAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears for the respondent authorities even at the second call. No accommodation is sought. The respondents have filed their affidavit in opposition.

(2.) I do not think the order of the Tribunal dated 29th August, 2002 [: 2003 (152) E.L.T. 201 (Tri. - Kol.)] can be sustained. There are several reasons for this.

(3.) Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned advocate for the petitioner points out that at that point of time import of gold was free. There is no contradiction of the statement. When the situation is that importation of gold was free, a higher onus was on the Revenue to prove that the gold bars, which were seized from the possession of the appellant, were illegally imported or "smuggled". More so, when there was no dispute that the petitioner was carrying on the business of jewellers.