TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to bring on record that the appellant and the supplier were related parties and there was any flow back from the appellant to the supplier. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/176/2009-DB - Final Order No. 20175/2019 - Dated:- 18-2-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Pradyumna G.H. Advocate For the Appellant Smt. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 22/12/2008 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) who rejected the same. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the impugned order has travelled beyond the show-cause notice because in the show-cause notice differential customs duty was not demanded and for this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CC Vs. R.K. International [2018-TIOL-1762-HC-DEL-CUS] wherein it has been held that without specific demand in the show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Revenue is not entitled to demand customs duty under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne International Vs. CC [2016(338) ELT 142 (Tri. Del.)] ii. CC, Delhi Vs. Maruti Fabric Implex [2016(343) ELT 963 (Tri. Del.)] iii. S.K. Dhawan Vs. CC(Import) [2016(344) ELT 436 (Tri. Mumbai)] 4.3. Further the learned counsel also submitted that the redemption fine is not imposable as there was no seizure of the goods in the first place and it is settled law that confiscation can be ordered only when the goods are seized. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Chinku Exports Vs. CC [1999(112) ELT 400 (Tri.)] ii. CC Vs. Raja Impex (P) Ltd. [2008(229) ELT 185 (P H)] iii. Shiva Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2009(235) ELT 623 (Tri. LB)] iv. Bhagyanagar Metals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2016(333) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
