9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue has appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) passed on 6th March, 2007 to the extent that the order-in-original was modified as regards confiscation and denial of DEPB benefit ordered by the adjudicating authority. 2. The adjudicating authority had ordered confiscation of export goods mentioned at serial no. 8 of the shipping bill no. 8081 dated 04.05.2006 valued at Rs. 9,62,364/- with an option to redeem for a fine of Rs. 40,000/-.DEPB benefit of Rs. 67,365/- taken on the said value was denied and a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on the respondent under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The learned authorised representative for the Department has strongly contended that there was no justific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, according to him, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in modifying the order in respect of items other than footrest, occurring at serial no. 8, sample of which was tested as a representative sample of all the 4 items. It was also submitted that the validity of the report was not challenged by the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, so far as the test of the sample is concerned, it was confined only to one of the 4 articles covered under serial no. 8 of the shipping bill, namely, "footrest", and as regards the DEPB benefit, relatable to that article and the confiscation thereof, the order of the adjudicating authority has been upheld. He submitted that, test report of on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king a risk in respect of other articles which were of a different nature, though clubbed under the same serial no. 8 in the shipping bill, by not getting them tested. By agreeing to taking of a sample of a particular item, the party cannot be attributed any consent or admission in respect of the other items, without anything more in the evidence. The respondent at no point of time admitted that the description in respect of other items was incorrect. In any event, the Appellate Commissioner has taken a reasonable view on the basis of the material on record and even if a different view may be possible, that by itself will be no ground for up-setting a view, which is reasonably taken on the basis of the material on record. The appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
