TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also bad in law - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/76/2012-SM - 20890/2017 - Dated:- 8-6-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Mohd. Yousaf, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Sai Ganesh Forwarders (SGF) Bangalore were engaged by Shri Agastine Edwin of M/s. Rabbi Tracks, Bangalore who had clandestinely cleared 36.02 kg of instant coffee extract falling under CTH 2101 1190 imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedents. He also submitted that the appellant has not entered into any service agreement with M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. for clearance of import cargo and hence the appellant cannot be treated to have abetted in forging of import documents. He also submitted that the appellant has not entered into any service agreement with SGF authorising for using of ICEGATE and to file Bills of Entry online on their behalf. On the other hand, the appellant has only authorised M/s. SGF for bringing the business of cargo clearance which has no connection with forging of import document by M/s. SGF. He further submitted that neither the appellant nor its employees have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiating the proceedings initiated for imposition of penalty. For this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Gautam Pukhraj Bafna Vs. CC, Mumbai: 2014 (314) ELT 305 (Tri.-Mumbai). 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, and after going through the decisions cited by the appellant, I find that the department has not been able to bring evidence on record which shows that the appellant or any of his employees is involved in fabrication of documents or have signed any of the forged documents used for import of goods. Further, I also find that the proceedings were initiated against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
