9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der]. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 29-4-2003 vide which duty demand was confirmed, seized goods were confiscated and penalty was imposed on the appellant. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the godown of the appellant was searched by the Customs officers and some fabrics of foreign origin were found. Appellant was asked to produce doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that their challenge is directed only towards the imposition of penalty and they are not challenging the duty and confiscation. It is her submission that the penalty has been imposed on them under the provisions of Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 which is not applicable in this case. It is her submission that penalty imposed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een from records that the proprietor of the appellant in his statement has said that the said goods were purchased by him from a broker who misrepresented that the goods were manufactured by an EOU. To my mind the appellant has been misled by the seller by misrepresenting the nature of the goods. As regards the contention of the learned consultant that penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
