9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations. At the time of the hearing, this was a relevant factor and even this was not pointed out by the Revenue at the hearing before the Tribunal - Thus the impugned order does not even indicate grievance of the Appellants before the Tribunal - In the absence of the grievance of the parties before it being considered the impugned order is a nonspeaking order. Appeal allowed - matter restored for fresh consideration - decided in favor of assessee. - CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2019 WITH CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2019 - M.S. SANKLECHA, S.C. GUPTE, JJ. Mr. Prakash Shah, a/w. Mr. Jas Sanghvi and Mr. Mohit Rawal, i/b. PDS Legal, for the Appellants in CUAPP/21/19 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Private Limited Company and ₹ 20 lakhs upon its Director under Section 112 (a) of the Act. This on the ground that the Appellants were persons responsible for diversion of the goods imported which were charged with an obligation to be used in manufacture of goods to be exported, by organising the 'high sea sales' of the imported goods and transporting goods to Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai, where the supporting manufacturer does not have any premises. 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14 December 2007 of the Commissioner, the Appellants had filed the appeals to the Tribunal. In their appeals, the Appellants contended that the high sea sales, which had taken place had been accepted by the Department as the imported good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of breach of the obligation under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations. At the time of the hearing, this was a relevant factor and even this was not pointed out by the Revenue at the hearing before the Tribunal. Thus we find that the impugned order does not even indicate grievance of the Appellants before the Tribunal. In the absence of the grievance of the parties before it being considered the impugned order is a nonspeaking order. 9. In the above view, both the substantial questions of law were answered in the negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the Appellants-Assessees. However, in the present fact, we restore Appeal Nos.C/251/2008 and C/252/2008 of the Appellants to the Tribunal for fresh c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
