2015 (4) TMI 599

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 20.06.2013, was received in excess of the quantity specified in the documents, without the knowledge of the appellant. 2. Sh. Jagdish Surti (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant filed the required bill of entry with respect to the quantity as specified in the import documents ordered by them. That importer appellant had no knowledge of 3.8 MTS of import Cargo received in on shore tanks supplied by the sender. That no redemption fine and penalty is impossible upon the appellant in view of the following case Laws -: (i) Sham Lal & Company vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - [2003 (161) ELT 1060 (Tri. Del)] (ii) Bansi Lal Leisure Parks Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Meerut - [2006 (196)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is true that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that it is inclined to accept the reasons given by the assessee that it was the supplier who by mistake loaded tin sheets waste which were not ordered by the assessee and that the Revenue has not shown that there was any flow back of funds for the purpose of tin sheets waste. However, a perusal of the order impugned shows that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the assessee had no intention to evade duty. We are deliberately quoting the order of the Tribunal in the following words : ".... the Revenue has not shown that appellant had wilfully suppressed the facts and had mis-declared the goods with intention to evade duty and the fact that he had consciously committed the act....