9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposing of the stay application, inasmuch as, in the said order, the Tribunal has observed that most of the Appellants did not file any bill of entry and two bills of entry were filed in the name of J.N. Export International. The contradictory finding is not borne out from any material, but appears to be based only on the submissions made by the revenue before the Tribunal in the absence of the Appellant. It is in the interest of justice that the impugned order dated 16th November 2017, insofar as the present Appellant is concerned requires to be set aside and a fresh adjudication ordered - Appeal disposed off. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.6 OF 2023 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2023 - G.S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in any import documents. (iii) On 30th April 2008, an Order-In-Original came to be passed by Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication). In the said order, penalty of Rs. 75,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant under Section 112(a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act. The findings in the Order-In-Original is in paragraph 73. As against the Appellant, the allegation is that he is a part of the conspiracy of the import consignments by resorting to smuggling of goods of high value through the import consignments set to contain goods of low value. The allegation is the consignment cleared by Sanjay Arora and Mukesh Saxena were delivered to the Appellant. In the Order-In-Original, role of the Appellant is alleged that he is a part of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt, there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay recovery in respect of all the applicants. 4. On 16th November 2017, when the appeals were listed for hearing the Tribunal rejected the application of adjournment made on behalf of the Appellant and proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte on merits. In paragraph 4 of the Tribunal s order, submissions of the revenue is reproduced and in the said submissions, it is stated that the goods were cleared at the behest of the Appellant and the duty was paid from his account and the goods were delivered to the Appellant proves that he was the actual importer of the goods. The Tribunal accepted various submissions made by the revenue and confirmed the penalty. Against such order of the Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order dated 25th October 2010, while disposing of the stay application, inasmuch as, in the said order, the Tribunal has observed that most of the Appellants did not file any bill of entry and two bills of entry were filed in the name of J.N. Export International. The contradictory finding is not borne out from any material, but appears to be based only on the submissions made by the revenue before the Tribunal in the absence of the Appellant. The counsel for the Respondent also could not explain the said contradictory finding. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal erred in recording such finding without any basis and wholly relying upon the submission of the revenue that too in the absence of the say by the Appellant. 9. As per the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
