TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not being able to immediately furnish the exchange control copies of the BoEs was bonafide. In any event, by the time the Appellants were heard by the AT, the certified copies of the documents to prove import of goods against the remittances at Sl. Nos. 9 to 11 and 12 to 14 were furnished. For some reason, the AT does not appear to have noticed this fact. It has not referred to the documents in its impugned order. The ED has not produced any material to doubt the authenticity of the said documents. It was for the ED, if it doubted the genuineness of the said documents, to have further verified them with the authorities concerned. - very basis for issuance of the SCN to the Appellants does not survive. There is no cause of action for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cause Notice ( SCN ) dated 25th May 2002 was issued by the ED to the Appellants stating that during the years 1994-99, the firm had remitted foreign exchange equivalent of ₹ 1,20,23,882 through the Bank of Baroda ( BoB ) in New Delhi for the imports of goods and that the firm have also to submit the Exchange Control copies of the bills of Entries (BoEs) in confirmation of having imported the material for which the amount was remitted. The SCN listed 15 imports in respect of which exchange control copies of the BoE were not filed. 4. In reply to the SCN, the firm placed reliance on a letter dated 4th December 2001 of the Reserve Bank of India which had listed 112 remittances in respect of which the BoEs had not been filed by the fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge Control Manual 1995. Penalties, as mentioned hereinbefore, were levied. 7. The Appellants state that along with the appeals filed before the AT, they had filed documents evidencing the import of goods against the remittances mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 9 to 14 of the SCN. 8. In the impugned order, the AT noted the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that it had submitted proof of import in respect of remittances at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2. However, the AT held that the Appellants had not placed on record any material evidencing the import of goods as regards the remittances at Sl. Nos. 9, 11 and 12 to 14. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and the impugned AO was confirmed. 9. This Court has heard the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he files in respect of imports that had taken place in 1994. The SCN was issued only in May 2002. The firm could not have been expected to retain the proof of all remittances for over six years. The explanation given by it for not being able to immediately furnish the exchange control copies of the BoEs was bonafide. In any event, by the time the Appellants were heard by the AT, the certified copies of the documents to prove import of goods against the remittances at Sl. Nos. 9 to 11 and 12 to 14 were furnished. For some reason, the AT does not appear to have noticed this fact. It has not referred to the documents in its impugned order. The ED has not produced any material to doubt the authenticity of the said documents. It was for the ED, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
