ORDER

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20th September, 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Customs Appeal No. 473/2004 [2004(177) E.L.T. 934 (Tri. - Del.)], vide which the appeal of the Customs Authorities was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal of the Department the Appellate Tribunal held as under :

"The initial burden has to be discharged by the Revenue to prove the smuggled nature of the impugned goods. Only when the Revenue discharges its burden of proving the smuggled nature of the impugned goods the burden will shift to the appellants to prove that they are not smuggled goods. The mere fact that the appellants could not produce bills for the purchase of the impugned ball bearings or they could not give the name and address of the seller/broker is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the ball bearings in question had been smuggled from outside the country. It has been rightly contended by the learned Sr. Counsel that the ball bearings have not been notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, and therefore, it is not their burden to prove their non-smu