9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri H.K.Thakur This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 227/Pal/CUS./Appeal/ 2013 dt 18/6/2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals Patna under which first appellate authority has upheld the order of confiscation made by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Sh. N.K. Choudhari (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that seizure of 1646 pcs of mobile phones of foregn origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Siddartha Agarwal- 2008 (228) ELT 560 (Tri-Kol) (ii) Nand Kishore Dabra-2005 (191) ELT 624 (Tri-Del) (iii) Lalchand Wadhwani- 2006 (200) ELT 281 (Tri-Del,) (iv) Pawan Kumar Sharma-2006 (197) ELT 263 (Tri-Del) (v) Tokyo Electronics-2007 (212) ELT 86 (Tri-Del) (vi) Sundarlal-2004 (165) ELT 250 (Tri-Kol.) 3 Sh. N.K. Naskar AC (AR) appearing on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te within 10 days of seizure of goods. Appellant made a claim with respect to seized goods on 27/08/2012 alongwith copies of the purchase bills. No investigations at all were conducted by the department to check the authenticity of the documents produced by the appellant. There was also no other claimant of present seized mobile phones of foreign origin and mobile phones are not notified under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the restrictions imposed by DGFT when the same were also not the subject matter of the show cause notice. 4.1 In the case of Siddartha Agarwal Vs CC Patna (Supra) this bench held as follows in Para- 1.2 "1.2 We find that the Appellants have produced necessary documents to show that they have purchased the impugned mobile phones from a dealer and the dealer has also confirmed the fact of sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
