Case Law Details
Thaya Tanning Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
Revenue alleged switching of the samples sent / taken to the Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) for getting favourable certification for the goods as ‘Finished Leather’ and thereby facilitating fraudulent export of ‘Semi-finished Leather’ in the guise of ‘Finished Leather’, to evade payment of export duty and to avail duty drawback, apart from other incentives.
Revenue has only alleged about the switching of samples, but has nowhere established how and where the switching had taken place since, admittedly, right from day one, the goods were at the godown of the CFS, the accessibility of which may not be that easy.
Revenue has not satisfactorily and effectively shook the first report of the CLRI dated 07.10.2016 and hence, it has to be held that the norms and conditions laid down under the Public Notice No. 21/2009-14 dated 01.12.2009 are satisfied, as opined by the expert. Hence, the demand of confiscation apart from demand of duty liability and the various penalties levied on the appellants cannot sustain, since the very basis on which the case of the Revenue rests is not well-founded. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and so also the various demands confirmed therein.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
