9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment to enquire as to how such documents were presented and in case of questioning their bonafideness, to conduct further inquiry with reference to the alleged forgery. We are not informed of any such inquiry conducted internally by the Department to support the allegation of manipulation or forgery of these documents signed by the officers. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No.57374/2013 (DB) - C/A/58142/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 1-12-2017 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri R.K. Majhi, AR for the appellant Shri Kumar Vikram, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The Revenue is in appeal against order dated 20.02.2015 of Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, New Delhi. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents exported Polyester Fabrics through ICD, Rewari, Haryana during September, 2004 under Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB). The whole dispute in the present case relates to the date of export of these goods. The respondent based on documents showing export on 21.09.2004 obtained DEPB Scrips from JDGFT, New Delhi having benefit of 10%. The R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintained by Haryana Warehousing Corporation at ICD, Rewari signed by the Port Manager and Inspector of Customs is dated 24.09.2004. The BRCs submitted by the respondent contains various corrections and re-writings and the export date wrongly mentioned as 21.09.2004. The DEPB register, shipping bill, register and export cargo register at ICD, Rewari show the date of shipment as 24.09.2004. Shri Manish Oberoi in his statement dated 28.11.2007 clearly stated that the goods were examined at ICD, Rewari on 24.09.2004 and the let export order was given on 29.09.2004. All the evidences relevant to the case were examined in detail by the Original Authority. As such, the impugned order has not appreciated these documentary evidences in proper perspective. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for restoring the original order. 5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the goods were exported through ICD, Rewari on 21.09.2004. The shipping bills have been countersigned by the Customs officer as per law. The date of signature by both the Inspector and the Superintendent was clearly indicated in the shipping bills as 21.09.2004. The date stamp of ICD, Customs affixed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides. Admittedly, the copies of the shipping bills submitted by the respondent clearly show the date stamp as 21.09.2004 along with the signatures of Inspector and the Superintendent of Customs dated 21.09.2004. The Revenue claims that the documents were forged and fabricated. The Revenue relied on another set of copies of shipping bills warehousing register, etc. to contend that the shipment date is only 24.09.2004. On close examination of these documents, were are convinced that contrary claims were made on the basic fact of date of shipment based on the documents, which bear the signature of customs offices. Though during the course of argument and written submissions, the Revenue made various assertions regarding manipulation and correctness of the documents by the respondent, the only ground agitated in the appeal filed by the Revenue is that the Commissioner cannot arrive at a different finding when the very same authority passed an order in favour of the Revenue in the first round of litigation. We note that the ground relied on by the Revenue in this regard is legally not sustainable. It is clear that the proceedings in the first round of litigation concluded and merged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Delhi, which read as under:- Please refer to your office letter F.No.05/18/51/4379 AM05/CLA/DEV-IV/5751 dated 07.03.05 on the subject above. In this connection, it is submitted that Shipping Bills No. 0039 and 0040 both dated 21.09.04 have been issued from this port and are genuine. The above said letter has been provided to the appellant by the adjudicating authority vide letter C.No. VIII(SB)10/48/50/GAMMA/Adj/2012 dated 9578 dated 17.8.2012. This proves the genuineness of the SBs. There is nothing in the impugned order to show that when the above said letter was on record and the adjudicating authority himself had supplied the same to the appellant, why it was discarded by the adjudicating authority. In the facts and circumstances discussed above the said shipping bills cannot be held to be dated 24.09.2004 merely on the basis of over writing in the internal records of the department and which are maintained by the department alone and not by the appellant. Hence the whole case against the appellant fails, as a consequence. He further records that there is no case of non-levy or short levy of customs duty against the appellant to make a demand under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
