T. MANOHAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the Order -in -Appeal Nos. 45 and 46/04, dated 10 -3 -2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata.

(2.) THE issue relates to seizure of certain non -notified goods from the appellants. The appellants produced certain receipts to the Revenue but the same were found to be bogus on verification. Hence, the goods were absolutely confiscated and penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - each was imposed on Shri T. Manohar and Shri A.V. Krishnamurthy under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has held that once the receipt produced to show legal appreciation and are found to be bogus, the burden to prove stands discharged by the Department. Hence he has upheld the Order -in -Original.

(3.) THE appellant did not turn up for hearing of the appeals. However, they wanted to decide the matter in the light of this Bench decision in the case of Shri Naveed Ahmed Khan and Ors. v. CC, Bangalore by Final Order Nos. 1934 - 36/2004, dated 7 -12 -2004 [2005 (182) E.L.T. 494 (Tribunal)] wherein it was held that in respect of the non -notified goods the burden of proving that the goods was non -notified is on the Revenue. Smt. Shoba L. Chary, learned JCDR contended that when the documents produced by the appellants are found to be bogus, burden to prove is discharged by the Revenue. In support of her contention, she cited the following decisions -