9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsaction that there is a likelihood of disposal of the imported goods within the State of Tamil Nadu and the concern with office at Kottivakkam being not registered in the Tamil Nadu - Held that:- Petitioner has placed necessary records to show that the consignment left customs barrier and reached Pondicherry in the same vehicle and adequate proof has been shown that the equipment is now with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the consequential order passed by the respondent dated 17. 06. 2017 rejecting the petitioner's objections for the detention notice and levying one time tax and compoinding fee. Though the impugned order dated 17. 06. 2017 appears to be an elaborate order, much of the observations made by the Officer are uncalled for and totally unrelated to the dispute on hand. 2. The goods imported by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rry. The airway bill also shows that the consignee is at Pondicherry and imported equipment is required for their own purposes and is being transported to Pondicherry. Thus, the respondent was required to consider as to merely because the notified party in the commercial invoice contains an address in Chennai, can the transaction be suspected to be one for sale within the State of Tamil Nadu. In f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is now with the petitioner. Thus, merely because the address of the notified party is in Chennai cannot be a sole reason to disbelieve the contention raised by the petitioner especially when the petitioner has been able to produce sufficient records to establish the genuinity of their transaction. Thus the impugned Detention Order as well as the consequential compounding order are completely no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
