TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order]. Ld. Counsel Shri Prashant Patankar appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the order passed by ld. Commissioner was under surmise and suspicion. Relying on the statement recorded from CHA and other persons in charge of the godown, the matter was decided unilaterally. He submitted that Bill of Entry No. 974275, dated 3-3-04 comprised 9947 pcs. of ball beari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of proof when there is an allegation made that the goods imported were not brought to Delhi. 3. According to the appellant, when the department did not find any discrepancy in the import, quantity imported as well as the goods packed in the packings there is no room left for the department to bring an allegation without any cogent or credible evidence. Ld. Commissioner only holding that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows that there is no lack of nexus between the imported goods and destination thereof as well part of imported good arrived in Delhi. Evidence on record do not contradict that the appellant had not imported 9947 pcs. of ball bearing legally. Accordingly, the appellant does not deserve to be dealt deterrently under the law. It may also be stated that suspicion however grave may be is not substitute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
