2017 (11) TMI 1795

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... warehousing period. Such goods are to be deemed as improperly removed in terms of Section 72(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act - Confiscation upheld - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part. - C/53215/2015 - Final Order No. C/A/57950/2017-CU(DB) - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, Presi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... When the order was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals), he upheld the same. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant as well as S/Shri S. Nunthuk and R.K. Manjhi, DRs appearing for Revenue. 3. The Ld. Counsel submitted that for delay in clearance of warehoused goods, the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m the warehouse as per Section 72(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the goods have been rightly confiscated and redemption fine and penalty are fully justified. 5. We heard both sides and perused the records. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant has imported certain goods and stored the same in a public bonded warehouse. However, in violation of the warehousing bond executed by them, the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X