TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant had provided certain false or incorrect material in relation to such import. Further, the Department was also in doubt as to the persons, who were actually filed the Bill of Entry for assessment purpose - Since contradictory stand has been taken by the Department at page 13 and at page 16 in the adjudication order, it cannot be said that the appellant is the importer of the goods and has ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the report furnished by CRCL, the Revenue contended that the goods were of hazardous waste and attracted the provisions of Hazardous Waste (Management Handling and Trans-boundary Movement) Rules, 2008. Accordingly, such goods were confiscated under Section 111 (d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department initiated show cause proceedings against the appellants seeking for confiscation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were imported under the cover of Bill of Entry dated 29.11.2012. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is not a case for the Revenue that the appellant has made any statement or declaration or filed any documents in context with import of the goods, which were proved to be false or incorrect. In this case, since the Bill of Entry was filed by one M/s. Amar Chand Sons and based on the declaration furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant paragraph in the Final Order No. 55906/2017 dated 14.08.2017 of this Tribunal is extracted here in below:- 5. After having carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of both the sides, it appears that the Revenue has failed to discharge its responsibility to prove charge of illegal import against the appellant. There is no clear cut finding that the appellant, Shri Jeeva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
