New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 1329 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2015 (11) TMI 1329 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - Seizure of goods - Illegal import - allegation of smuggling of goods - Held that:- Ownership of the seized/confiscated goods is uncontested. Shri Dipak Chakraborty of Siliguri in his statement dated 26/06/2009 stated that he has booked 23 bundles of goods from Jalpaiguri to New Delhi under PW Bill No. D 3988885 on 4/06/2009. Respondents have produced trading invoices of the seized/confiscated goods which are not brand name wise. Due to non matching of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he details of the seized goods with the documents produced by the Respondents is concerned, following has been held by Bombay High Court in C.C. (P) Vs. Mahendra Singh Purohit (2007 (8) TMI 358 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY) - Revenue has only raised suspicion on the origin of seized goods but has not discharged the burden as to how seized goods were of smuggled nature when Respondents have produced copies of trading invoices. In view of the above observations and the settled proposition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed-30/09/2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeal), Patna as first appellate authority under which Order-in-Original No. 4-CUS/ADC/DRI/2011 dated-24/01/2011 by the Adjudicating authority was set aside. 2. Shri S.K. Naskar (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that in para 4 of the Order-in-Appeal dated 24/01/2011 first appellate authority on one hand holds that seized goods were illegally imported into India whereas in the discussion portion, on the last page of Order-in-Appeal, holds that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ury (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Respondents argued that all the three respondents supplied the goods under proper invoices which were either imported by them or acquired locally at Siliguri. That minor discrepancies in the description of goods cannot be held as an evidence against the appellants in view of the following case laws when proper invoices were accompanying the goods:- (i) Manish Kumar Jain Vs. C.C. Chennai reported in 2008 (229) ELT 266 (Tri-Chennai) (ii) C.C. (Preventive) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

guri to New Delhi under PW Bill No. D 3988885 on 4/06/2009. Respondents have produced trading invoices of the seized/confiscated goods which are not brand name wise. Due to non matching of brandwise description in the trading invoices and the bills of entry produced/statements recorded it is the case of the Revenue that seized goods are of smuggled nature. In this regard first appellate authority has correctly held that documentary evidences cannot override the oral statements. In this regard it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version