9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the premises of the present appellants were cleared Ravi Raj Processors without payment of duty. In the absence of any such evidence the goods were not liable for confiscation and consequentially no redemption fine and penalty was warranted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - 703, 704, 730 & 731/11 - A/88192-88195/17/SMB - Dated:- 30-6-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member Shri Ravinder Jain, Consultant for appellant Shri S.V. Nair, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair These appeals are directed against order-in-appeal No. SB/102 to 106/Th.I/2011 dated 09.02.2011 whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confiscated the goods seized in the premises of M/s. Ambika Synthetics ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ravi Raj Processors. In this regard there is no inculpatory statement of any person of the appellants even from the goods no marking was found by which it can be related to M/s. Ravi Raj Processors. On the contrary the appellants have submitted ample evidence that the goods do not belongs to M/s. Ravi Raj Processors and do belong to some other party. Therefore, in absence of any evidence the goods which was lying in the premises of appellants were cleared from the factory of M/s. Ravi Raj Processors, the same was not liable for confiscation. Hence the redemption fine and penalties consequential to the confiscation of the goods is not sustainable. 2.1 As regards the goods found with M/s Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd, appellant submitted ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the department is that the goods found with these 3 appellants were cleared by Ravi Raj Processors. Therefore, even if the goods of some other parties received without documents, the charge of the department in the present case does not get established. 2.4 As regards the appeal of Shri Nawal Agarwal, Director of Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd., since the confiscation of goods in the premises of the Transport Company is not sustainable consequently penalty on the Director is also not warranted. 3. Shri S.V. Nair, learned Asst. Commissioner appearing on behalf of Revenue reiterates the findings of the order-in-original. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 5. I find that the entire case of confis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants received certain goods without documents from some other parties, the goods cannot be confiscated as the case was basically made out on the basis that goods were allegedly cleared from Ravi Raj Processors. As per my above discussion, I find that Revenue could not establish beyond doubt that the goods seized in the premises of the present appellants were cleared Ravi Raj Processors without payment of duty. In the absence of any such evidence the goods were not liable for confiscation and consequentially no redemption fine and penalty was warranted. 5.1 As regards the appeal of Shri Nawal Agarwal, since the charges against M/s. Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd., is not established, consequential penalty imposed upon Shri Nawal Agar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
