9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er no. A/86908/17/CB dated 20th December 2016 setting aside the impugned order for not being in compliance with the time-frame stipulated therein, which was held to be mandatory, for completion of proceedings. Aggrieved by a number of similar orders, the licensing authority preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay for determination of law on, inter alia, the scope for setting aside of orders of revocation at the preliminary stage for non-adherence to the time-frame without going into the merits. After determining the point of law, the Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter back for fresh decision in line with the determination. Hence the present proceedings. 2. Though Learned Consultant for the appellant was prepared to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the name and style of another entity in which the value of the goods had been misdeclared to evade duty. Learned Consultant informed that the penalty imposed in proceedings initiated under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 on Shri Lalit Agarwal, partner in the appellant-firm, for the very same involvement had been set aside by the Tribunal vide order no. A/86612/2018 dated 23rd of March 2018 [appeal no. C/86850/2017]. We take note that the Tribunal has held that the bills of entry had been filed on the basis of documents furnished to the broker and that there is no evidence of any discrepancy in these documents. It was also found by the Tribunal that there was no evidence of additional consideration flowing back to the supplier of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justification for the delay in the completion of the enquiry proceedings. The first hearing was held on 25th of July 2014 and three other hearings thereafter on 14th August 2014, 9th December 2014 and 12th December 2014. It is also on record that no witnesses or additional documents were produced on behalf of the appellant and it is also seen that, at the first hearing, the presenting officer sought time to ascertain correctness of the claim of the documents that were relied upon in the show cause notice. The second proceedings were adjourned as the presenting officer did not have the list of witnesses that was to be relied upon. Furthermore, it is noticed that the proceedings of 14th August 2014 were adjourned without specifying the next ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
