9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are no substantial reasons available to contradict the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is agreed upon - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/75962/14, C/76008/14 & C/76009/14 - FO/A/76260-76262/16 - Dated:- 13-12-2016 - Shri Ashok Kumar Arya, Member (Technical) Shri S.N. Mitra, AC(AR) for the Appellant (s) Shri D.K. Dutta, Consultant for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri Ashok Kumar Arya 1. Heard both sides. 2) Revenue is in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 31.03.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Patna, whereunder Order-in-Original dated 30.09.2013 has been sustained. The said Order-in-Original passed by the Additional C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mainly submits that the goods are in the category of pulses and that they are in prohibited category and require proper license to be issued from DGFT for their export to Nepal, which was not available with the exporters. 7) Ld. Consultant on behalf of the respondents mainly submits that for taking the sample of the subject goods proper procedure was not followed, and further they were under the impression that subject goods were under category of vegetables and they were not the pulses; it is also not used as pulse but is used as a vegetable only and they had only submitted the shipping bills which were signed initially only by the Inspector and were not signed/approved/verified by Superintendent; and after verification and signature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t; and the Respondent No.3 having entered all the relevant information in the export register; and no allegation or finding regarding his complicity, the protection under Sec.155 of Customs Act is available to him, being action taken in good faith by him. These observations are well supported by Hon ble tribunal s decision in case of A.P Sales Vs. CC-2006(198) ELT; CC, ICD TKD Vs G.S. Charpeta - 2009(237) ELT 353. 9. There was another contention that there is no proposal to confiscate the goods and in the absence of which no penalty be imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. It is on record that there was proposal in the show cause notice to impose penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act without any proposal for confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
