9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Container Corporation that the container in question was ordered by the respondent. When their being no evidence to that effect, penalty cannot be imposed upon the respondent - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No. 52989 of 2015- (SM) - ORDER NO. FO/53614/2016- (SM) - Dated:- 16-9-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Appellants By: Shri H L Saini, AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings, the container in question was confiscated absolutely and penalty of ₹ 14 lakh was imposed upon respondent. 3. On appeal against the said order Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty by observing as under: 5. It is evidence on record that the SCN dated 14.8.2013 was issued to the Appellant after the arrival of the container at lCD, TKD on 12.6.2011 i.e. nearly after two ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order is set aside to the extent of penalty imposed upon the Appellant only and the Order related to absolute confiscation is not interfered with, being not a matter of present appeal. 4. Revenue in their memo of appeal have not produced any further evidence to show that the respondent was the owner of the goods in question. They have merely referred to another order of Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
