9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same goods imported under the name of N/s. New Karunai Granites (the respondents in appeal No. C/261/2012). The goods had initially imported by M/s. Swathi Enterprises (Proprietor Shri Arun Kumar, respondent in C/263/2012) for job works namely, conversion into flower vases and are re-export to the foreign supplier. The Bills of Entry were filed by the respondent No.1 on the basis of high seas sale from M/s. Swathi Enterprises to them. Past consignments involving the Bills of Entry No.525366 dated 31.05.2010, 709681 dated 04.12.2010 and 741539 dated 06.01.2011 were cleared for home consumption without any objection at that point of time. However, when the live consignment goods covered under the Bills of Entry No. 4823110 dated 03.10.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. N. Karunakaran and Mr. Arun Kumar (two other respondents in appeal No. C/262/2102 & C/263/2012) under Section 114AA of the Act ibid. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 set aside the demand in respect of the past consignments on the basis of merits and time bar and in respect of live consignments allowed the goods to be released to M/s. Swathi Enterprises. The lower appellate authority set aside the order of the original authority in toto. 3. Aggrieved, department is in appeal. (i) The Commissioner has erred in holding M/s. Swathi Enterprises as owner of the goods, for the reason that the supplier had not sold the goods to M/s. Swathi Enterprises and the supplier had sent it only for jobbing. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed foreign exchange, which is against the terms of bond accepted by the second importer (HSB). All this exercise is undertaken by suppressing the vital facts from the competent authority. (iii) The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the department has not able establish any Revenue loss is not borne by the fact. (iv) The adjudicating authority had discussed all aspects in detail in the original order, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to consider these aspects. 4. On behalf of the department, the Ld. AR, Shri Arjun Raghavendra, DC, reiterated the grounds of appeal. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, submitted that the goods had been cleared by New Karunai Granites in respect of the past ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
