Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2007 (6) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides and perused the record. 2. The appeal is directed against confiscation of 70 kgs. of Chinese Origin Silk Yarn and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a job worker engaged in the twisting of silk yarn, at Varanasi. His premises were searched by Customs Officers on 21-8-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evidenced by the documents viz. Panchnama and statement of the appellant relevant to the present case, whereas the appellant, in his statement dated 21-9-95 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, has stated the actual quantity in balance, as on the date of seizure, i.e. 21-8-95, to be 73.025 kgs. The situation becomes more confusing when the statement of the appellant is tallied with the quan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rative Society Ltd. in the circumstances of the instant case delineated above. Thus, from above it is apparent that 70 kgs. of silk yarn seized from the residential premises of the appellant is a separate quantity and is different from the quantity of silk yarn claimed by the appellant to have been received for twisting and also that appellant fails to putforth any justification regarding presence....