9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, it can be safely assumed that the Revenue was otherwise satisfied with sufficient cause . Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 40020 of 2020 - FINAL ORDER NO. 41435 / 2021 - Dated:- 26-3-2021 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Balakumar, Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER The assessee has come in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 81/2019-TTN (CUS) dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli. 2. Brief facts, as gathered from the documents placed on record and the Appeal Memorandum, are that the vessel carrying 62 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Bill-of-Entry, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli, who vide order impugned herein rejected the appeal filed by them. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this forum. 4. Heard Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Learned Advocate appearing for the assessee-appellant and Shri S. Balakumar, Learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue-respondent. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit at the outset that in an identical situation, this very Bench of the CESTAT has deleted the late fee in the cases of M/s. Blueleaf Trading Company v. The Commissioner of G.S.T. Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli in Customs Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual background therefore, it is very difficult to accept as to how the Order-in-Original came to be passed against a Customs Broker just because it made a request. Appellant is clearly not the first importer, there is request for amendment in IGM on record, allowed by the Revenue after collecting requisite fees and these are clearly post-import developments. The subsequent developments, as observed supra, were perhaps necessitated because of the goods being perishable. Clearly, no mala fide is found in the above developments by the Revenue and therefore, it can be safely assumed that the Revenue was otherwise satisfied with sufficient cause . 8. For the above reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
