ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The Revenue has come up in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, who directed confiscation of various consumer goods such as cordless telephone, cosmetics, cooking range, domestic appliances, etc., seized on 04/05/1995 from the premises of the respondent herein with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondent.
2. I have heard both sides.
3. I find that that none of the goods in question are notified goods. Further I also find that the respondent produced bills for purchase of many of the items which were seized, such bills were verified and found to be genuine. However, in respect of bills certified by one Shri D.S. Gole it is the case of the department that Shri Gole was non-existent as stated by the Chief Executive of the Associated Electrical Agencies.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent brings to my notice that Shri Gole was an employee not of Associated Electrical Agencies but of M/s. Sony India Limited and further that the verification stated to have been carried out by the adjudicating authority was behind the back of the respondent.
5. Regarding the bills of Sony India Limited and Dhanraj Electronics it is the case of the department that the address of these two companies was sought to be verified and found to be non-existence. However, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered this aspect, and has found that the bills produced by the respondent were found to be genuine inasmuch the person who issued those bills have confirmed that such bills were issued by them. He has also found that Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not apply to such goods and that the burden to prove that the goods seized were smuggled goods was cast upon the Revenue and this burden not been discharged by the department. Before me no satisfactory evidence has been brought on record to hold that the goods in question which were seized from the residence of the respondent have been established to be goods which were smuggled into India and therefore I agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the burden to prove that the goods in question were smuggled goods has not been discharged by the department.
6. I therefore hold that there is no ground for interference with the impugned order and therefore uphold the same and reject the appeal.