9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - allegation is only concerning procedural violation in removal of licensed goods from the bonded warehouse to an adjacent shed. It is not the case that the goods have been removed clandestinely for illicit sale or disposal - it is a case of storing the goods outside the bonded warehouse without malafide intention - penalty imposable - appeal dismissed - dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used to warehouses A B, however bonded goods from these warehouses, which have been shifted to the warehouse C have been destroyed. The Department took the view that the movement/shifting of impugned bonded goods from the licensed warehouse premises to a non-licensed and non-permitted warehouse C amounts to illegal/improper/un-authorized removal of warehoused goods in contravention of the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rum. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, ld. Advocate Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman, submits that the appellants are in appeal only on the issue of penalty imposed on them. He submits that in the absence of malafide, there was no reason to impose penalty under Section 112 (a) and (b) of the Act. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan, supports the impugned order and states t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am of the considered opinion that the penalty under Section 112 (a) and (b) is very much imposable on the appellant for the reasons given by the original authority. At the same time, allegation is only concerning procedural violation in removal of licensed goods from the bonded warehouse to an adjacent shed. It is not the case that the goods have been removed clandestinely for illicit sale or dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
