TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 22.07.2009, the Revenue Officers visited godown of M/s. Shreeji Road Lines, 357,Strand Bank Road, belonging to one Shri Rajkumar Tosniwal. The Officers found rolls of synthetic fabrics in the said godown and on demand for relevant papers, the said Shri Tosniwal assured to produce the same on 23.07.09. Consequently, the Officers seized the goods on 27.07.2009 on a reasonable belief that the goods were illegally imported into India, violating the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992. The owner of the godown, Shri Tosniwal submitted self-attested copies of Bill of Entry No.337392 dated 16.06.09 and Bill of Entry No.337702 dated 01.07.09. Fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and the Investigating Authority failed to prove that the goods in question were smuggled in nature, he dropped the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said Order, Revenue filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn allowed the Revenue s appeal. Hence the present Appeal. 4. The Appellant has mainly challenged the impugned Order on the ground that mere mentioning the seized goods as synthetic fabrics does not conclusively prove that the goods were correctly described in the Seizure List and the Show Cause Notice, particularly when the Appellant had contested the goods as viscose knitted fabrics duly imported under Bill of Entry No.337392 dated 16.06.09 and Bill of Entry No.337702 dated 01.07.09. 5. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ras 5 and 6 of the Order-in-Appeal, he has observed as follows:- 5. I have gone through the grounds of review, submissions made at the time of hearing and all other evidence on record. It is seen that the lower authority on the basis of bills of entry dropped the proceedings for reason that the goods which were seized are those very which had been imported under the bills of entry. He further goes on to state that nowhere in the show cause notice is there an allegation that fabric is made of wholly or mainly of synthetic yarn. In this regard I find that in the show cause notice it is stated that the seized goods are synthetic fabric. When the notice mentions that the goods are synthetic fabrics, and when neither the respondent in reply to ....