TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption fine - penalty - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Even if it is to be assumed that samples were drawn on 14.10.2016, the Revenue has not brought out on record as to how and where the samples were preserved since more than three weeks after drawing the samples have they sent the samples to the CLRI for examination/report, since, as contended by the Learned Advocate for the appellants, leather is such a goods on which even the weather will have an impact; hence, preservation of the same is very much material. The Revenue has not satisfactorily and effectively shook the first report of the CLRI dated 07.10.2016 and hence, it has to be held that the norms and conditions laid down under the Public Notice No. 21/2009-14 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleging, inter alia, that there was switching of the samples sent / taken to the Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) for getting favourable certification for the goods as Finished Leather and thereby facilitating fraudulent export of Semi-finished Leather , to evade payment of export duty and to avail duty drawback, apart from other incentives. 2. A perusal of the Show Cause Notices reveal, inter alia, that a team of officers from the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB), Custom House, Chennai carried out a surprise check at the Container Freight Station (CFS), Virugambakkam, on 07.10.2016 where some of the consignments of finished leather meant for export were lying at Godown No. 03, which was sealed by the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sl. No. Order-in-Original No. Date of order Appeal No. before CESTAT 1. No. 75915/2020 17.08.2020 C/40620/2021 2. No. 76012/2020 04.09.2020 C/40621/2021 3. No. 76334/2020 30.09.2020 C/40618/2021 4. No. 76360/2020 30.09.2020 C/40617/2021 5. No. 76362/2020 30.09.2020 C/40114 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be permitted to present common facts. 6.1 The Learned Advocate for the appellants would submit, at the outset, that the CLRI had initially certified vide its reported dated 07.10.2016 that the sample leather satisfied the norms and conditions laid down in the Public Notice ibid. He would further submit, while referring to the Mahazar dated 14.10.2016 drawn in the presence of witnesses at the premises of M/s. Central Warehouse Corporation Ltd., Continental Freight Station, No.1, Arcot Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 092, that there is no mention about drawing of the samples at all anywhere in the said Mahazar; that the Mahazar just mentions about the examination of the consignments lying at Godown No. 03. 6.2 He would also subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es under the Mahazar and sent the same to the CLRI for testing/report; that one of the exporters had made admissions in his voluntary statement and that at no point of time had the appellants-exporters disowned the samples or denied the test reports. She further placed reliance on an order of the co-ordinate Bench of the CESTAT in the case of M/s. Interglobe Aviation Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Cus., Bangalore reported in 2022 (379) E.L.T. 235 (Tri. Bang.) to justify the invoking of extended period of limitation. 8. I have considered the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record as also the orders of the lower authorities. After hearing both sides, I find that since a common issue is involved and the relief sought is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which even the weather will have an impact; hence, preservation of the same is very much material. 11. Further, the Revenue has only alleged about the switching of samples, but has nowhere established how and where the switching had taken place since, admittedly, right from day one, the goods were at the godown of the CFS, the accessibility of which may not be that easy. 12. These facts coupled with the fact that the Mahazar dated 14.10.2016 did not witness drawing of any samples, throws sufficient doubts about the allegation of switching of samples and, in any case, the Revenue has not explained anywhere as to the source of the sample which was sent to the CLRI for testing/report. The above is sufficient to dislodge the veracity of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
