9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as pointed out by the appellant to be of 12.350 MT, has been reflected in the said register that has not been disputed by the respondent-department. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that balance stock available with the appellant was more than the duty free stock imported by it. A close scrutiny of the order of Commissioner of Customs, Goa at para 35 would reveal that on the same ground, duty demand of first sale of 3.8 MT on 1-6-2007 was waived off and the second sale was held to be dutiable on the ground that appellant had admitted the sale to have been made out of duty free stock. This being the sole justification found in Order-in-Original, apart from use of allegedly invalid licence which was not agitated by licence issuing autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on 1-6-2007 quantity of 3800 kg. of phenol was diverted vide sale Bill No. 0321 and on 8-9-2007 a quantity of 2860 kg. was diverted by sale Bill No. 0866. Appellant was put to show cause notice, matter was adjudicated upon and the Commissioner of Customs, Goa, in a common order disposing of several cases, adjudicated that appellant was liable to reduced duty demand of ₹ 61,022/- against sale of 2.86 MT duty free phenol under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 holding confiscability of the phenol. 3. In the memo of appeal and during course of hearing of the appeal, Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Anil Kumar Mishra submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those were not voluntary confession and given under pressure exercised by DRI and in view of multiple investigation against the same group of persons as well as voluminous records involved in assessing the factual position, such statement was given that cannot be considered as confession as at the earliest possible opportunity to retract the statement i.e. at the time of reply to the show cause notice, allegation were well substantiated on the basis of threadbare analysis of records. Learned Counsel for the appellant further argues that no other corroborative evidence that would outweigh documentary evidence was produced by the respondent-department to substantiate the allegations and they had not disputed that such sales were not made wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted by it. A close scrutiny of the order of Commissioner of Customs, Goa at para 35 would reveal that on the same ground, duty demand of first sale of 3.8 MT on 1-6-2007 was waived off and the second sale was held to be dutiable on the ground that appellant had admitted the sale to have been made out of duty free stock. This being the sole justification found in Order-in-Original, apart from use of allegedly invalid licence which was not agitated by licence issuing authorities i.e. DGFT, no other course available before us to give a finding on the issue except placing reliance on the documentary evidence that surpasses the oral evidence as per the principle contained in Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. We have got, therefore, no hes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
