TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e present appeal is that the Appellant is a registered dealer of Ward-42/KDU, dealing with footwear and readymade garments under the brand name "Woodland‟. Certain goods were imported from China in 404 cartons. They were cleared by the Customs Department on 28th July 2011. The consignment was further transported on that day i.e. 28th July 2011 from the Airport Cargo warehouse in two tempo vehicles bearing registration Nos. DL 1LM 2175 and DL IM 3534. The relevant documents pertaining to the consignment was with the driver of the tempo bearing registration No. DL 1LM 2175. Although both tempos were initially travelling together, the tempo bearing registration No. DL 1LM 3534 got separated and was intercepted by the Value Added Tax Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty as assessed by the VATO has been deposited. 5. The Appellant then filed objections before the Objection Hearing Authority ("OHA‟) inter alia contending that there was no default by the owner of the imported goods as the relevant documents were carried by one of the two tempos travelling together. It was pointed out that there was no loss to the Revenue and, therefore, the penalty which had been paid under protest, was illegal and arbitrary. 6. The OHA passed an order on 18th October 2011 confirming the imposition of the penalty. Although it was noted that the Objector had filed photocopies of the invoices, packing list, air way bill, challan of the Central Excise & Customs etc, the OHA held that the Objector had "failed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted out one reason for the impounding viz., the absence of the Bill. It was noted that the Appellant promptly complied with that order and on the very next day produced the requisite documents which were verified by VATO. In the circumstances, the penalty sought to be imposed could not be justified on some other ground. A reference was made to the decision of this Court in Magicon Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade and Taxes (2012) 47 VST 367 (Del). Even otherwise, the particulars which were required to be indicated in the GR, Form DVAT-32 were set out in the customs examination certificate and in the bill of entry. 10. The third member, Ms. Nita Bali, concurred with the view of Mr. D.C. Anand and held that the impugned order of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (page 32 of appeal file) shows number of imported pieces as 27,187 (6,048 + 2,660 + 7,430 + 10,999) and number of imported cartons as 404 (76 + 59 + 166 + 103). Custom examination receipt dated 28th July 2011 (page 22 of appeal file) shows that in total 404 packets were imported. The dealer just on the next day, i.e., on 29th July 2011 submitted, before the VATO, the detailed inventory (page 23 of appeal file), which is in two parts viz: (i) 250 cartons containing 16516 pieces detained by VATO, and (ii) 154 cartons containing 10671 pieces received in the godown of the Appellant. The details provided by the dealer also include design and rate. The VATO in the order dated 5th August 2011 has categorically admitted by stating that "the invent....