9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.0210011917 dated 10.05.2000 & DEEC Book No. A 024320/Cal dated 10.5.2000, 25 packages of the said yarn collectively valued at Rs.15,53,918/- CIF, were placed under seizure by the customs department at Kolkata in Dec.2001. It was the case of the Revenue that the respondent had imported the said silk yarn against the said Advance Licence and DEEC Scheme where under the place of manufacture was shown as 54, 4-IL-Cross, Hosahalli, vijoy Nagar, Pipe Line, Bangalore, but, on verification, it was found that no such factory did exist in the said address and the said address was reported to be fictitious. 2.2 A show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant on 27th March, 2002, alleging violation of condition of Notification No.30/97-Cus dated 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n operating during the relevant period. The first address is at No.13, Papanna Lane, Sanjeevappa Lane Cross, 1st Floor, Avenue Road Cross, Bangalore 560002, mentioned in the Challan 6 dated 8.10.2001; the second address is at 54, 4-IL-Cross, Hosahalli, Vijoy Nagar, Pipe Line, Bangalore, where the resultant products for export were declared to be manufactured; and the third address at 12, 6th Cross, Laxmi Road, Shanti Nagar, Bangalore, was given SSI Certificate issued by Director of Industries. All these addresses were found to be fictitious. He has submitted that since the address for the manufacture of imported yarn as declared in the DEEC book was found to be not correct and fictitious, and hence, the seized silk yarn were liable for conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn at 54, 4-IL-Cross, Hosahalli, Vijoy Nagar, Pipe Line, Bangalore. 4.2 The ld. Advocate submitted that initially on the basis of the report from the Customs Department the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade cancelled their Advance License vide Order No.1230 dated 6th December, 2005, but on an appeal by the respondent, the said Order was set aside by the Appellate Authority vide Order-in-Appeal dated 21st April, 2006, The ld. Advocate submitted that even though the order-in-appeal dated 21.4.2006, was placed before the adjudicating authority, however, the same was not considered, and confiscation was directed. But the said order-in-Appeal was considered by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly, their appeal was allowed by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional authority that the said address was fictitious. It is not dispute that during the course of investigation the export manager as well as the Partner admitted that the exported goods could not be manufactured at the old factory address due to paucity of space and had categorically stated that the goods were manufactured at the Ramsundra Village, Kolar District, Kolar, Kranataka-563101 which was taken on lease and produced the relevant lease deed. I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), after detailed discussion of these evidences recorded his finding as below: "9. This order of the Addl. DGFT was placed before the lower authority. This has been referred to by the lower authority in the impugned order. Yet the lower au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
