TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Shri Y.S. Loni, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard the three Ld. Counsels appearing for the 14 appellants and the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Department. 2. In respect of appeal No. CDM-13/04, the impugned goods were alleged to be third country origin and illegally imported. In respect of rest of the appellants, the allega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t these goods were also of Indian origin and the same after provisional release have been legally exported to Nepal under intimation to Customs Authorities and as such, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is self-contradictory. 4. The Ld. D.R. has no explanation to the contradictory order passed by the adjudicating Commissioner. 5. We find substance in the arguments advanced by the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 11H of the Customs Act, 1962. They argued that the said notification has been issued in the context of specified goods under Section 11-I of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned goods are not specified under Section 11-I and hence, the said notification does not have any application to the impugned goods. 7. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that there is force ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In regard to appeal No. CDM-15/04 relating to appellant Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, it is the submission of the Ld. Advocates that the Adjudicating Commissioner has not passed a specific order in regard to the appellant nor a copy of the adjudication order has been sent to him. However, the appellant is aggrieved as the impugned goods claimed by him has been ordered to be confiscated under paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
