9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs was set aside. Tribunal’s order was delivered on 12-6-2012, the customs authorities should have taken action upon the request of respondent and allowed it. The goods are perishable in nature; the respondent is hereby directed to ensure that the goods which are subject matter of appeal before CESTAT in Customs Appeal. Goods released at the earliest. In favour of assessee - 4950 of 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in an order-in-original whereby the Commissioner directed confiscation of goods holding that there was misdescription. The petitioner appealed to the Tribunal (CESTAT). By order dated 12-6-2012, the petitioner s appeal was allowed. The Court observed as follows : 2. The counsel for the appellants submits that the criteria laid down in the Notification issued by DGFT to permit export of rice is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not maintainable and the appellant in that case was allowed to take back the goods, to town. 4. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue is not making any plea to distinguish the facts of the case from the case already decided. Therefore, we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order both in respect of confiscation and penalty and allow the appellants to take back the goods to town. Misc. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reports. The CESTAT however, followed its previous order in some other case where goods were similarly confiscated and held that the confiscation of the petitioner s goods was unsustainable. Since the Tribunal s order was delivered on 12-6-2012, the customs authorities should have taken action upon the request of respondent and allowed it. 7. Having regard to the circumstance that the goods are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
