9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue Shri G. M. Sharma, Consultant for the Respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan These four appeals have been filed by Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 13/25.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The relevant order-in-original is dated 23.07.2008. The three passengers namely S/Shri Ajay Gulati, Jatin Kapur and Kapil Rai were intercepted by the officers of DRI in the dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) he set-aside the order in toto. Hence Revenue is in appeal. 2. Heard Shri K. Poddar, ld. AR for the Revenue and Sh. J. M. Sharma, ld. Consultant for the respondent. Ld. AR reiterated the view of the original authority and submitted that the same may be reinstated. Ld. Counsel submitted that the proceedings undertaken against Sh. Ajay Gulati and the two other two passengers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. 3 when he was intercepted at IGI Airport, New Delhi and his statement recorded. The document recovered indicated that the goods covered by the two imported containers were originally valued totally at US$ 42127.50 when the same were sold by M/s Kuusakoski OY of Finland to M/s Transnational (HK) who in turn, exported the same to respondent No. 1. The reasoning adopted by Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p to establish its identity. Finally, he has dropped the demands and penal action with the view that misdeclaration of the goods could not be sustained only on the basis of statements and documents recovered from third party. 3. We find that the entire case of Revenue has been built up on the basis of a few documents recovered from respondent No. 3 and others who were intercepted at Airport. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
