IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.275 of 2009 Commissioner of Central, 5th Floor C.R. Building Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna Appellant Versus A.P. Traders CK-23/12 Rani Kuan Chowk Varanasi 2210001, U.P. Respondent --------- For the appellant: Mrs Archana Menakshee, Advocate -------- 06/ 06.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order under appeal passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, Eastern Zonal Bench; Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). There is no dispute that the appellant claims to have purchased 65 cartons of imported silk yarn. According to the learned counsel for the appellant 65 has been mentioned due to mistake and correct number of cartons is more. Be that as it may, out of said lot purchased from M/s Utkal Polyweaves Industries Private Limited who imported the same through Chennai Government House, 15 cartons were sent in one lot to Bhagalpur for job work and 17 cartons were also sent separately to Bhagalpur for similar job work. According to the appellant 17 cartons are mistake for 29 cartons which were seized by the Patna Customs at Patna railway station and were ultimately released under the orders of the Joint Commissioner Custom dated 14.7.2006. The same documents which formed the basis of order dated 14.7.2006 are basis for seeking release of 15 cartons sent to Bhagalpur and seized at Bhagalpur railway station. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that adjudicating authority, Joint Commissioner, has given some reasons to take a - 2 - different view than what was taken earlier in respect to cartons seized at Patna railway station and released to the appellant. The order under appeal passed by the tribunal is based upon a plea that the present consignment being part of same imported lot can not be treated differently as they are covered by the same import documents. The tribunal has given benefit of doubt to the appellant on the basis of earlier order of release against which the Tribunal did not file any appeal. In the facts of this case, we do not find any good ground to take a different view. Hence this appeal is dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) shahid