9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit in any unjust manner. The adjudicating authority did not impose penalty on M/S GMR Industries on such finding. Held that:- There is absolutely no evidence to show that M/S GMR Industries had any direct involvement in short shipment or that they had tried to make any illegal gain. In fact as soon as they came to know of the less quantity, they have initiated internal enquiry by seeking explanation from CHA, surveyor, transporters etc. They also filed police complaint. The delay in informing the department in our opinion is only an inadvertent lapse as found by the Commissioner. The goods were rightly not confiscated as they were not physically available. We find no merit in the appeal. - Decided against the revenue. - C/338/2007 - Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eople in connection with diversion of HCFC intended for export. Based on news reports investigations were initiated. It was found that though export order was granted for 4500 MT, the HCFC loaded in the vessel was less. From the correspondences of exporters it was observed that exporters vide their letter dated 20.04.2005 had sought explanation from transporters, surveyors CHA for the short shipped cargo. They had also lodged police complaint and FIR was registered. The foreign buyers S.K. Resources, Hongkong conducted survey at discharge port and found the weight of total cargo was only 4268.200 MT instead of 4500 MT. 2.3 It is the case of department that even after receipt of confirmation of shortage in weight, from the foreign buy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so contended in the grounds of appeal that department is aggrieved by non-imposition of penalty on M/S K.R. Sons, Parekh Marine Shri G.D. Patel, they have not been impleaded as respondents in this appeal. So this contention raised by Revenue/appellant fails in limine. The only respondent in this appeal is M/S GMR Industries Ltd., who are the exporters. None appeared for the respondent even after issuance of notice. The case was taken up for disposal after hearing the AR appearing for department and perusal of records. 4. On the foremost it has to be stated that it is seen from records that respondent has not applied for DEPB for full quantity. They applied for actual quantity only and obtained DEPB license only for actual quantity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority did not impose penalty on M/S GMR Industries on such finding. 6. On appreciation of the facts and evidence as narrated above, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner. There is absolutely no evidence to show that M/S GMR Industries had any direct involvement in short shipment or that they had tried to make any illegal gain. In fact as soon as they came to know of the less quantity, they have initiated internal enquiry by seeking explanation from CHA, surveyor, transporters etc. They also filed police complaint. The delay in informing the department in our opinion is only an inadvertent lapse as found by the Commissioner. The goods were rightly not confiscated as they were not physically available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
