2016 (12) TMI 1681

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is filed against Order-in-Original No. 19/CEX/2005, dated 31-5-2005. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notices. Since the appeal is of 2005, we take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of any representation. 3. Heard the learned departmental representative and perused the recor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ded against the appellant are based on conjectures and surmises; did not receive any benefits from the EOU, hence no penalty can be imposed; burden is on the department to show that the appellant is the one who, by acts of commission and omission, rendered the goods liable for confiscation, penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act without mentioning sub-clause is illegal. 6. It i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X