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 / TMI Blogs / RSS

2024 (12) TMI 1100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cise, Patna. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.04.2018, officers of SSB intercepted two Vehicles bearing Registration No.BR31G/8020 and BR22G/5147 and they were found to contain 8500 kg. of Rahar Dal and 8500 kg. of Urad, collectively valued at Rs.7,65,000/-. The SSB officers handed over the same to Customs Circle, Bettiah on 05.04.2018 where the goods and the said Vehicles were seized by the Customs Officers on the reasonable belief that the said consignment of Rahar Dal and Urad were smuggled in from Nepal. 2.1. Md. Serajul, proprietor of M/s. Bismillah Traders, situated at Khamiya, P.O. Inerwa, District-West Champaran [hereinafter referred to as the "appellant"] having the GST as well as the PAN Number for the Firm, claimed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r co-noticees. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 03/Pat/Cus/Appeal/2020-21 dated 29.04.2020. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. It is the contention of the appellant that the learned Commissioner has failed to consider the fact that the appellant had purchased the said goods from the farmers of Jaitiya Panchayat, which is located within the territory of India and transportation was made within the permissible limit in the country; further the appellant clearly stated the names of the farmers from whom he had purchased the goods, which are agricultural produce. It is submitted that there is ....