9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Learned Tribunal is justified when the respondent has not followed any of the condition mentioned under Regulation 11(a), 11(d), (k) and 11(n) of the CBLR 2013 ? ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal's order is correct when it is admitted and apparent on the face of the record that the respondent has not obtained any job clearance from the exporter and the authorization has been obtained through intermediaries after filing of the shipping bill ? 2. We have heard Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Micky Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The short issue which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the Learned Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's appeal by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce work without meeting authorized person of the exporter and work was received through many people in between acting as middlemen. Apart from this there appears to have been no other specific allegation of any malpractice or misfeasance. This aspect was considered by the Tribunal and on facts it concluded that respondent cannot be penalized for not physically interacting with the exporter which is not provided under the CBLR. More importantly, what is required to be seen is that Excise seal of the shipper were found to be intact. This has been admitted by the Department. 6. Even in the Order-in-original dated 26th July, 2018 in paragraph 4 wherein the adjudicating authority has recorded that the container was opened and examined in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ole on the part of the concerned person or the shipper of mens ria on the part of such person. After pointing out the above legal position, the Tribunal set aside the finding of the adjudicating authority. 8. The said order appears to have attained finality. One more aspect which has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the DRI initiated criminal proceedings against the partner of the respondent and based on a petition filed by DRI before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata. An order was passed on 8th August, 2023 stating that the adjudicating authority did not recommend prosecution against the partner of the respondent who was arrayed as accused no.1. There is also a communication sent by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
