Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

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 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (8) TMI 1122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....angalore are manufacturer of Granite Slabs. The unit was licensed by the Custom Department as 100% EOU. The officers of the Preventive Unit, Bangalore visited the premises of the appellant and found 40 Nos. of Granites slabs measuring 90"x18, 2100 No. of tiles measuring 40cm x 60cm & 30cm x 30cm, un-sized and random granite slabs measuring 270sq.ft. and granite strips measuring 650 sq.ft. lying in the premises of the appellant. The appellant stated before the officers that these goods were purchased by him from M/s. Alpha Rich Granites, Bangalore, a 100% EOU, on a cash consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for which the appellant was not given any document and the appellant was unable to produce any document evidencing p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was produced before the adjudicating authority showing the proof of legal purchase of the subject goods but the same was conveniently ignored. He further submitted that the appellant is not a manufacturer/producer or registered person of the warehouse or a registered dealer and the provisions of Rule 25 does not get attracted for confiscation of the goods or for imposing penalty. He further submitted that for aiding and abetting prior knowledge is required whereas the Department could not establish with a documentary evidence that the appellant had the knowledge. 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that both the authorities have considered the role of the appellant in the illegal possession of ....