The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the confiscation of Betel Nuts as the assessee failed to submit evidence to prove the legitimacy of transaction.
A truck was intercepted on at Chhapwa which is a place between Raxaul & Motihari. It was found that a consignment of 3420 Kgs of Betelnut valued at Rs. 3,42,000/- was being transported. On being intercepted, the Driver fled away and no documentary evidence was produced before the Customs Officials towards the consignment being transported.
The Appellant Shri Madan Kumar submitted an application claiming the ownership of the consignment and sought provisional release of the Betel Nuts. He claimed that he was transporting the betel nuts from Motihari to Patna for sale. On the way, it was seized by the Customs officials.
He submitted that the Betel Nuts were purchased from M/s. Om Sai Enterprises vide Bill No. 55 dated 24/12/2012. In turn M/s Om Sai Enterprise had purchased the said goods on 28/09/2012 by participating in the E-Auction conducted by the Customs Division, Motihari. The goods were released provisionally after depositing Rs. 1,50,000/- as Redemption Fine and payment of Customs Duty of Rs. 4,29,032/- by the Appellant.
Subsequently, the Show Cause Notice was issued and OIO was passed by the Adjudicating Authority confiscating the goods valued at Rs. 3,42,000/- with an option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as Redemption Fine. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- against the present Appellant.
It was contended that the entire case is based on assumptions and presumptions just because the driver fled away and could not show the licit document at the time of interception. This on its own cannot allow the Department to come into a conclusion that the goods were being smuggled from Nepal.
There is no dispute that the consignment in question was seized by the officials at Chhapwa. It is not disputed that Chhapwa is located in between Raxaul and Motihari. The Appellant while claiming that the goods have been purchased within India, has not even produced the copy of Invoice No. 55 dated 24/12/2012 before the Adjudicating Authority nor has he enclosed the same along with the Appeal Papers and Synopsis filed today.
Since the amount involved under this Invoice is for Rs.3,42,000/-, the Appellant is not in a position to say as to how this payment was made to the vendor. Another unanswered question is what was the serial number of Invoice raised by the Appellant when the goods were being transported from Motihari to Patna. There is no proper explanation forthcoming as to why the truck has proceeded in the northern direction towards Chhapwa when Patna was located to the south of Motihari.
The two-member bench comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial) and Rajeev Tandoon (Technical) observed that the appellant failed to submit enough evidence towards legitimacy of the transaction, so they cannot take the plea that the Department has not discharged their onus.
Since the Appellant has failed to discharge the onus placed on him, the CESTAT upheld the Order passed by the Appellate Authority and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
