TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - As submitted by the appellants, we do not find that the Department has produced any evidence to prove that the goods have been clandestinely removed by the appellants from the bonded warehouse. It is also not disputed that the goods have been warehoused after import. Looking into the volume of the capital goods and other goods imported by the appellants under 82 bonds for which they have sought extension, the items which were not produced before the authorities at the time of inspection appear to be very minuscule. As submitted by the appellants the possibility of the items being consumed up during the process are the possibility of the items being misplaced cannot be ruled out. - No penalty Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellate authority has issued a non-speaking order and has not appreciated the contentions of the appellant particularly regarding the applicability of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962; the lower appellate authority further did not appreciate the fact that duty if at all charged will the on the depreciated value of the goods at the time of inspection of the goods and not on the imported value of the goods. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed on assumptions and presumptions, conjecture and surmise drawing unwanted inference that failure to produce goods for physical verification amounted to removal of goods being; full of legal errors the order nee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He submits that in the absence of any finding of any dishonest or contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant, penalty imposed was not sustainable in view of the Supreme Court order in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. V. State of Orissa 1978 (2) ELT (J) 159 (SC) and Commissioner of Customs Vs. Powerica Ltd. 2012 (276) ELT 302 (Kar.) 3. The learned Departmental Representative has reiterated the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal and submits that the appellant s claim of applicability of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 is long drawn and devoid of any merit. In terms of the provisions of Section 71 and Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellants are not able to show the goods for verificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under 82 bonds for which they have sought extension, the items which were not produced before the authorities at the time of inspection appear to be very minuscule. As submitted by the appellants the possibility of the items being consumed up during the process are the possibility of the items being misplaced cannot be ruled out. We find that neither the original authority nor the appellate authority have discussed that possibility. Moreover, the submissions of the appellants that as they are capital goods due to allowance for depreciation required to be given was not considered. As submitted by the appellants, we find that this very Bench in the appellant s own case has decided the issue vide the orders cited supra. We find that this ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
