9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id fact from the corresponding concerned office. The appellants now have the documents in their custody - matter in respect of the said demands needs to be remanded once again for verification of the documents - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/53056-53058/2015-CU(DB) - C/A/52252-52254/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 9-3-2017 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri Dharmendra Kumar Rana, Advocate for the Appellants Rep. by Shri K. Poddar, DR for the Respondent Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they are arising out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur, vide which he has confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d documents establishing the factum of export. As they could not produce the export related documents in respect of four consignments, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 8,55,087/-, ₹ 6,897/-, ₹ 3,248/- and ₹ 2,263/-. The appellant s contention is that the documents were seized by anti evasion branch of the customs during the raid in their premises and the documents related to the present disputed exports were still lying with the department and the appellant could not procure the same. However, a request was made to the adjudicating authority to procure the documents from the relevant custom Ports so as to establish the factum of export. However, the adjudicating authority did not exceed to the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication, we are of the view that matter in respect of the said demands needs to be remanded once again for verification of the documents. We order accordingly. 8. We further note that duty to the extent of ₹ 2,35,104/- stands confirmed against the appellant on the findings that there is excess wastage of 938gm generated by the appellant, which is in excess of the standard wastage of 9%. Ld. Advocate explains that the law permits them to claim maximum wastage of 9% and they have claimed 9% only, even though in some of the cases, the wastage was exceeded to 9% i.e. up to tune of 10.6% approximately. Further explaining, he submits that wastage of the raw material in jewelry manufacturing depends upon the design, craftsmanship et ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand to the extent of ₹ 2,35,104/-. 10. We further note that customs duty of ₹ 3,05,011/- stands confirmed in respect of re-import of jewelry as the documents proving the re-export of the same, after carrying out repairs could not be produced by the assessee. Ld. Advocate fairly agrees that the appellant do not have export documents to establish re-export of the said jewelry. In the absence of any documents to that effect, the said demand is required to be confirmed. We order accordingly. Further, as these goods have been confiscated and a common redemption fine has been imposed in respect of the earlier demands also, which have been set-aside by us, we direct the Commissioner to fix the redemption fine and penalty i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
