9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the land border with Bangladesh is treated as a specified area. On a specific query from the Bench, the Ld.AR could not explain as at which stage the goods under seizure were within 50 kms. distance from the land border with Bangladesh. In the absence of any documentary evidence, suggesting that seized goods were meant for export to Bangladesh, it cannot be held that the Appellants can be visited with penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly Appeals filed by the Appellants are required to be allowed. - No penalty. - Appeal Nos.CA-75383-75384/14 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75325-75326/2016 - Dated:- 2-5-2016 - SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri R.N.Bandyopadhyay, Consultant for the Appellant (s) Shri S.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estined for Bangladesh. Ld.Consultant further argued that First Appellate Authority has not given his individual findings regarding imposition of penalties upon his clients but has only reproduced the findings given by the Adjudicating authority in Para 4.06 of Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2013. 3. Shri S.N.Mitra, AC(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that Phensedyl Cough Linctus is a specified item under the Customs Act, 1962 which was required to be purchased and sold under proper invoices and certain statutory records were required to be maintained as per the provisions of Drugs Cosmetics Act. That Appellants generated fake vouchers/invoices in the name of fictitious persons to cover the seized goods. Ld.AR thus strongly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis for taking action under the Customs Act, 1962. It is also observed by the Adjudicating authority, as reproduced by First Appellate Authority in para 9 of Order-in-Appeal dated 18.12.2013, that Phensedyl Cough Linctus is a specified good under section 11-I of the Customs Act, 1962. As per Notification No.31/2008-CUS(NT) dated 25.03.2008, an area of 50 kms. in width from the land border with Bangladesh is treated as a specified area. On a specific query from the Bench, the Ld.AR could not explain as at which stage the goods under seizure were within 50 kms. distance from the land border with Bangladesh. In the absence of any documentary evidence, suggesting that seized goods were meant for export to Bangladesh, it cannot be held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
