9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in New Delhi. The seizure having been vacated, imposition of penalty would not survive, as held in the case of MUNILAL MEHRA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ADJ.), MUMBAI [ 2008 (1) TMI 167 - CESTAT MUMBAI] . Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 960 of 2005 - FINAL ORDER No. 51720/2021 - Dated:- 10-8-2021 - MR.DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sunil Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Department ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Shri Kuldeep Thapar filed this appeal No. C/960 of 2005 CU (DB) against an order-in-original dated 29/08/2005 passed by Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Adj.), Mumbai 2008 (226) E.L.T. 102 (Tri. Mumbai). 4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings in the order-in-original. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 6. We find that the Commissioner in his order finds that Kuldeep Thapar in his statement has denied any concern with godown No. 3214-A/3, Chutani Manzil, Ram Bazar, Mori Gate, Delhi. However, Shri Lal Chadha S/o Late Shri Dharampal Chadha R/o 26, Hauz Khas, New Delhi in his statement dated 14/06/99 has stated that Kuldeep Thapar S/o Shri Diwan Chand Thapar was a tenant in Shop No. 3. Therefore the Commissioner found that the statement of Kuldeep Thapar stands disproved and accordingly imposed penalty on the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant s unit, did not reveal anything to the contrary. They have reiterated the stand that the imported goods were as per the accompanied documents. In the light of the above, there is no tangible evidence establishing that the goods found in the bonded store room were part of goods imported duty free and hence, we are of the view that the fully finished goods, found in the bonded store room of the appellant s factory at the time of search are not liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The confiscation is liable to be set aside also for the reason that the goods were still found within the Customs bonded warehouse and not cleared illegally. For the similar reasons we are of the view that confiscation of goods t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of an order of confiscation of goods or a finding of liability of any goods to confiscation. The ingredients of Section 112(b) are also not attracted against the co-noticees on the above reckoning, as held by the Tribunal in Castrol (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Vapi - 2008 (222) E.L.T. 408 in the context of Rule 209A which is pari materia with Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 . 9. The appellant has also submitted that the proceedings against the main accused in the case of M/s Bhagwati International were set aside as far as the confiscation of goods alleged to have been sold through different shops located in New Delhi. The seizure having been vacated, imposition of penalty would not survive as held by the Tribunal in Munilal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
