Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. We find that in the present matter as soon as the Appellant No.1 observed the discrepancies and found that its material was interchanged with the goods of some other party, the appellant approached the department. The bonafide act of the appellant No.1 in this matter therefore cannot be doubted. Further, in the present matter department also allowed the amendment in shipping bill and export of the goods to UAE buyer.

15. We find that in the entire disputed matter the Appellant No.1 himself is victim of disputed transaction. We also take note of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Guru Ispat Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 384 (Tri.-Cal.) wherein the re-export of the wrongly shipped goods by the foreign supplier was allowed, by taking into account the bonafide of the appellants, by taking immediate steps, on detection of wrong shipment and by holding that there cannot be any mala fide on the part of the assessee. The said order of the Tribunal stand upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected as reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. A87. To the similar effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aniketa Krishna International v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2012 (280) E.L.T. 131 (Tri.)].