9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty and the same was paid. - 559 of 2007 - C/361/2011(PB) - Dated:- 3-8-2011 - Mrs.Archana Wadhawa, Mr.Mathew John, JJ. Present for the Appellant: Shri R.k.Gupta, SDR Present for the Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate PER: ARCHANA WADHAWA Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Shri R.K.Gupta, learned SDR and Shri Piyush Kumar, learned Advocate appeared for the respondents. 3. As per the facts on records, the respondents are holder of CHA licence from 1991 onwards. They have filed bill of entry on 2.11.2005 for clearance of consignment imported by M/s.Honey Hersh Impex. In the bill of entry the description of imported goods was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment and imposed penalty upon the importer, chartered engineer and CHA. 6. On the above basis, the proceedings were also initiated by way of issue of show cause notice dated 20.8.2007 proposing revocation of their CHA licence under the provisions of Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004 and for imposing penalty under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice stands adjudicated by the Commissioner, vacating the same and dropping the proceedings against the respondents. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 7. The adjudicating authority has observed that in terms of para 23 of chapter 3 of the CBEC s Customs Manual of Instructions, all imported goods are required to be examined for verification of correctness of descrip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the certificate was being given by the chartered engineer without actual inspection by the department. As such they have made prayer for setting aside the impugned order. 9. After considering the submissions made by both sides, and after appreciating the arguments advanced, we note that the Revenue in their memo of appeal have no where contested the finding of the Commissioner that it was the CHA himself who had asked the department to exercise first check. If the intention of the CHA was to facilitate clearance of the goods by misdeclarting the same, he would not have requested for first check. In that scenario, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Commissioner. Otherwise also, we find no independent evidence reflecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
