9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owledge Infrastructure Systems Pvt Ltd and Rahul Bhandare that the adjudication order can be challenged on the fundamental ground of no penalty imposable in their case since none of the elements of section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 are present. The adjudication is time-barred since notice was issued on 31/8/2016 against bill of entry filed on 13/12/2013, passing the impugned order on 23/12/2016. Wherever, duty is not paid as required by law or there was short payment thereof, section 28 is invokable. Their cases are not the cases of short payment of the duty. In such an event, imposition of penalty is absurd. 1.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the test reports relied upon by the Revenue which are appearing at page 4, 10 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their powers are for the purpose of checking the smuggling of the goods and due realisation of customs duties and to act to protect interest of Revenue but not to act as a Police Officer. Their duty is to ascertain whether appropriate duty has been paid. 1.4 It is his submission on behalf of appellant that Section 139 of the Customs Act, 1962 has specific provision for presumption as to the documents. There shall be total violation of law if reliance is placed on documents which were never provided to appellant nor were subjected to test under law. Appellant relies on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam v. Truwoods Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (331) ELT 15 (SC), and more particularly para 4 thereof, to say that if docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Relying on the page 73 of OIO and more particularly para 16, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the findings are contrary to law which are not based on evidence. 2nd COSA report was from the coal exporter of Indonesia that supports the case of the appellant. But Customs held that COSA report has no authority and are not reliable. 1.7 Appellant further submitted that the documents at page 375-377 of the appeal folder if considered relevant for the purpose of adjudication, appellant has every right to lead defence thereon which will bring relief to appellants in the re-adjudication. If appellants submissions are heard and the matter is remanded for re-adjudication, that should not be done by the same adjudicating authority bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
