TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....564/2018 dated 23.03.2018. 2. Denovo decision has occasioned as the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya in the order dated 06.05.2019, allowing the Appellant's appeal Under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 in Cus. Appeal No. 1 of 2018 has set aside Tribunal's order dated 23.03.2018. Hon'ble High Court has made the following observations and direction:- "(a) Appellant aggrieved by the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as Tribunal have filed this appeal before this Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as Act of 1962. (b). Background of the case. On an information of the officer of the Customs Headquarter Preventive Unit,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urity deposit by the concerned owners of the said vehicles towards fine/penalty was made. A penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- each was imposed on Shri Lalduha, Shri Khuangluaia, Shri Zothanmawii, Shri Thahleikhuaia under Section 112 (b) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition thereof, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each on Shri Faizul Mia, Shri Abidur Rahman Laksar, Shri Nurul and Shri Abdul Kalam Laksar under Section 112 (b) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was imposed. As against the order in original, appeal before the Tribunal was filed only by Shri. Manik Ranjan Paul. Joint appeal was also filed by Shri Bimalendu Roy and Shri Manik Ranjan Paul unsuccessful as the same have been dismissed on 23.03.2018. (c) We have heard the Learned Counsel for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bills of entry. Accordingly to him, papers have been manipulated. (g) As against the findings recorded, various contentions were raised in the memo of appeal filed before the Tribunal. Tribunal in the order has mentioned that the appellant (Shri Manik Ranjan Paul) has furnished four bills of entry when as a matter of fact he had produced seven bills of entry. Further, it has been opined that the documentary evidence furnished by the appellant is not acceptable. Betel nuts were imported in October 2014 and October 2015, whereas goods were seized in the month of March, 2016. The investigation has also established that the consignments were fictitious and also observed that the goods were purchased on credit from a person apparently not kn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny person has to sell his product to anyone and admits to have sold even abruptly creating buyer, that cannot be questioned. (j) Whether dry betel nuts could be preserved for more than one year or not, no finding to that effect has been recorded except by showing that there is a gap of one year between import and sale, when according to the learned counsel for the appellant, dry betel nuts can be preserved after proper treatment for a longer period. (k) It will be appropriate to remand the case back to the learned Tribunal for deciding appeal filed by the appellant afresh. Order of the Tribunal dated 23.03.2018 is set aside and matter remanded to the learned Tribunal for deciding the appeal filed by the appellant afresh after giving r....