2010 (6) TMI 448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....showing the goods as of Korean origin, proceedings were initiated against the appellants demanding customs duty on 13353 Kgs. of Copper Rods since the appellant could not show any evidence or proof of importation of these goods. In adjudicating proceedings as well as in the appellate proceedings, on an appeal filed by the Revenue, lower authorities took a view that quantity has been duly entered in the statutory records and stock taking has not been done properly and further, since the goods were not notified under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, the department had no proof that the goods were imported ones. 2. Obviously the investigations were carried out by the Revenue issued which resulted in fresh show cause notice dated13-2-2007. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 467 (Tribunal) - Bhagawati Electrical Enterprises & Ors (ii)    2004 (96) ECC 83 (T) = 2004 (170) E.L.T. 331 (Tribunal) - Siddharth Tubes Limited (iii)   2007 (78) RLT 541 (CESTAT) = 2006 (206) E.L.T. 390 (Tribunal) - Confederation Overseas Clearing I am not considering the issue of Res Judicata in this case since I feel that demand cannot be sustained even without applying the principle of Res Judicata. In the case of seized goods, show cause notice to be issued within six months extendable up to one year. The departmental officers even at that time knew that the goods found in excess was not received from M/s. Duplex. The details of the challans covering the consignment have been given by the Commission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r rods found in excess were not the ones supplied by M/s. Duplex, proceedings have already been completed in respect of excess quantity found. The present case if for the quantity which is supposed to have been received by the appellant and this conclusion emerges only on the ground that quantity which was found in excess was not the one supplied by M/s. Duplex. The department has to show that if Duplex has not supplied the wires someone else supplied the raw material. Therefore, in this case no receipt of the raw materials has been proved and for the conclusion that finished goods manufactured out of these raw materials, no evidence is available on record. Therefore, the demand for duty on copper wires manufactured out of the 13353 Kgs. of....