9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Senior Counsel and Smt. Divya Datla, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This reference is made at the instance of the Department under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, as it stood in the year 2003, with a request to direct the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (for short 'CEGAT') to refer the following questions to this Court : 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short 'the Rules'). Alleging that the explanation was not satisfactory, an order of confiscation was passed on 27-3-1996. Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed Appeal No. 335/96(H)CE before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad. The appeal was allowed through order, dated 20-8-1998. Thereupon, the Department carried the matter in further appeal to CEGAT. The appeal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the relevant particulars were effected in the prescribed form. 5. Assuming that there was some delay in making entries in the relevant form, the goods were not liable for confiscation. Rule 173Q of the Rules no doubt empowers confiscation of the goods on the ground that the entries are not properly made. However, every failure to make the entry or every defect therein does not constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
