9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide. By following the said decision of the Tribunal in the same respondent case, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue’s appeal is accordingly rejected. - Appeal No.258 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri N. Pathak, AR For the Respondent: Shri V.R. Sethi, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the respondent appeal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri N. Pathak, ld. A.R. appearing for the Revenue and Shri V.R. Sethi, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. As per facts on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pping bill can be processed/presented well in advance prior to receipt of the goods in the warehouse, by referring the para 5.6 of the Public Notice No.16/2000- CUS dtd. 09.10.2000 that one copy of processed Shipping Bill is presented by the exported/CHA to the Shed Incharge, who shall give acknowledgement that the goods have been received in the shed. Thereafter, the Shipping Bill will be presented to the Appraiser/ Superintendent, who will give the examination order on the duplicate copy of the shipping bill. I find that the Adjudicating Authority has not discussed as to whether there was any evidence of acknowledgement available on record in token of having received the goods by the Shed Incharge or any employee of the Customs. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the appellant has neither admitted in his statement dtd.31.0.2003 nor in his reply to the Show Cause Notice that any ante- dating of the signature has been done by him. He has, infact, denied the charge in toto. Even the narration regarding factual details incorporated in Para 14 of the impugned order are different than this finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, the adjudicating authority has drawn an adverse inference, which is erroneous and contrary to the fact on record. The appellant has submitted that the Shipping Bill was countersigned in the normal course of duties. There was no reason and material before the appellant to suspect that the Examination Report of the Inspector was incorrect. That when the Shippi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t submits that the same may be dereliction of duty and cannot invite penal action against the respondent for aiding and abetting the exporter. 6. At this stage, we find that identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunal decision in the case of D.R. Ahuja vs. CC, Amritsar 2010 (250) ELT 386 (Tri-Del.). The appellant in that case is the respondent in the present case and the facts involved are the same. The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence indicating that Shri D.R. Ahuja signed on the shipping bill on 31.3.2000, prior to the actual examination with any guilty mind. The statement of the said Shri Ahuja is that he has no intention to give undue benefit to the exporter and at the most it was a case of negligence of duty. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
