TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tself the appellant has approached the officers informing the short shipment. The immediateness in making such request by the appellant draws a strong inference that there is short shipment of goods and it is a mistake in supplier s invoice. The appellant cannot be called upon to pay duty on goods which he has not received. Thus, the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained - impugned order is set aside and the order passed by original authority is restored - appeal allowed. - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri R. Rajaraman, Assistant Commissioner / A.R. ORDER Brief fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 432 ltrs. 79589 21369 Total 521449 140003 The importer imported these goods under Bill of Entry No. 3083567 dated 30.03.2011 (Shipping Bill NO. 5024 dated 31.03.2011) 1.4 The Importer had been permitted by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide letter in C.No. VIII/48/29/2007-Cus.Pol. dated 12.9.2007 for self-bonding and warehousing of the imported and indigenous materials. The goods imported against Bill of Entry No. 3083597 dated 30.03.2011 was palletized in 2 Nos. and was received in the factory on 04.04.2011. On examination of the contents of the 2 Pallets by the importer, it was found that only the following material were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order impugned herein set aside the order of adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal filed by Department. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant / importer is now before the Tribunal. 2.1 The Ld. counsel Shri N. Viswanathan appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant placed an order for supply of 1100 pairs of Rubber Top Pieces along with other goods with their supplier, Loake Shoe Makers, UK. The appellant received an invoice showing supply of 11000 pairs. Believing that the supplier has sent that much goods, they filed the Bill of Entry and moved the goods as per procedure to their warehouse on 04.04.2011. On physical verification, they cam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not for 11000 pairs. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to considered that it was mistake committed in supplier s invoice. The Ld. Counsel prayed that appeal may be allowed. 3. The Ld. Authorised Representative Shri R. Rajaraman appeared for the Department. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The facts narrated above would show that the appellant has been called upon to pay duty of the short shipped goods. The Purchase Order would show that appellant has placed order only for 1100 pairs. So also the supplier- Loake Shoe Makers Ltd. has issued letter at 21.04.2011 to the appellant stating that they have supplied only 1100 pairs. A revised invoice and packing list with correct quantity ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
