2016 (12) TMI 1623

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ceedings against the following respondents namely  1) M/s. Kanhar Baba Bhandar, 2) Shri Mahesh Kumar Purvey, 3) Shri K.K.P. Verma. 3) Revenue is represented by Shri S.N. Mitra, AC(AR) and three Respondents are being represented by Shri D.K. Dutta, Consultant. 4) The matter concerns with the export of the item namely "Kerao" under two shipping bills which were filed by the respondent namely M/s. Kanhar Baba Bhandar for export to Nepal through Jaynagar Land Customs Station. The department's case is that the subject item namely "Kerao" is a kind of pulse and it is prohibited item for export. 5) Brief facts are that the goods were meant for export to Nepal in two trucks. Two shipping bills accordingly were filed for these two trucks .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... place to Nepal. Therefore, there was no intention on their part to export such prohibited goods to Nepal. Ld. Consultant also states that when there is no proposal for confiscation in the show cause notice, no penalty can be imposed on the respondents. 8) I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of both the sides. The original adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings mainly on the ground that relied upon test report is not that of the true representative of the goods alleged to have been attempted for export. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order confirmed the Order-in-Original and rejected the departmental appeal citing various reasonings. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order interali .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oposition is not legally tenable. Thus impugned order dropping the proceedings initiated vide SCN dated 24.11.2012 is legal & fair." 8.1.) Commissioner (Appeals) has given various reasonings for sustaining the order of the Original Adjudicating Authority. From the facts on records and the submissions of both the sides, It appears that there are no substantial reasonings given by the department to reverse the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. When there are no substantial reasons available to contradict the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), I agree with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals filed by the department, therefore, are rejected as without merits and the impug .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X