TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fit of Exemption Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011; b. whether demand of differential duty is sustainable; and c. whether penalty imposed on the Appellant and co-Appellant were sustainable. 2. The Appellant had imported Mulberry Rose Silk from Vietnam by availing the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011 and produced the Country of Origin (COO) Certificate as per the Notification No. 189/2009-Cus (NT) dated 31.12.2009. Goods were imported under 2(two) Bill of Entries, and it was assessed and allowed to clear on allowing the exemption. Thereafter, DRI initiated investigation, alleging that the impugned goods originated from China and routed through Vietnam to avail the exemption wrongly. As part of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocedures for the Rules of Origin for the ASEAN-INDIA Free Trade Area (AIFTA]. Learned Counsel further submits that the Section 108 statements and the e-mail printouts of third-party data ought not to have been relied without satisfying the conditions stipulated in Sections 138B, 138C (Admissibility of micro films, facsimile copies of documents and computer printouts as documents and as evidence). The conditions of Section 139 of Customs Act, 1962 are not satisfied in as much as those documents are not received from authentic sources and an opportunity to rebut was not given to the author of those documents though the Section 108 statements were retracted. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that when there is reasonable doubt as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that manner or not at all. If the law requires that something be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, and if not done in that manner has no existence in the eye of the law at all. Learned Counsel relied on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court; i. Babu Verghese & Others Vs. Bar Council of Kerala - 1999 (3) SCC 422 ii. Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad & Others - (1999) 8 SCC 266. iii. Cherukuri Mani Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2015) 13 SCC 722. iv. Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar (2015) 11 SCC 628 v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Abhilash Lal & Others (2020) 13 SCC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to examine the persons, whoever it may be, who signed the statements before admitting the statements as evidence in terms of Section 138(1)(b) and subsequently an opportunity must be given to the other party to cross-examine those persons. The Adjudicating Authority has not fulfilled the obligation under Section 138(1)(b). 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that in SCN, there is an attempt to adduce evidence in the form e-mail print outs. It was only shown to the deponents during the recording of statements in Jan and May 2022. There is no record of proceedings to justify that this was retrieved from the electronic devices. The source of this document is not known. In the reply to the SCN, the authenticity of this d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous as the goods are not available for confiscation. The entire demand is not tenable. Consequently, the interest and penalties are also not sustainable. 10. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that as per the evidence on record, fraudulent document was submitted. As regarding penalty, Learned AR submits that M/s. Gounder & Co. for their act of omission and commission is liable to a penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. As provided by the 5th Proviso of Section 114A "that where any penalty has been levied under this section, no penalty shall be levied under Section 112 or Section 114". Thus, invocation of Section 112 against M/s. Gounder & Co. is i....