TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed vehicle in March 2003 i .e. within 2 years of its import against the deal between the appellant and Shri Shailender Singh in February 2003 - The sale is complete as the possession of the vehicle has been transferred to Shri Shailender Singh by the appellant against the payment. Held that: it is admitted fact that the appellants were directly involved in the negotiations of sale of the impugned vehicle intentionally that vehicle cannot be sold within two years of its import and it shows the modus operandi of the appellant - Thus,imposed the penalty on the appellant of Rs. 1 lakh - Appeal of the assessee deserves no merit, hence rejected. - C/441/2008-Mum - A/564/2010-WZB/C-IV/SMB - Dated:- 29-9-2010 - Shri Ashok Jindal, J. REPR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the actual Customs duty leviable. Accordingly, on the charge of mis-delcaration of year of manufacture model, code and violation of the no sale condition within 2 years of clearances from Customs, the vehicle was seized. The statements of several persons were recorded and show cause notice was issued which was adjudicated holding that the appellant arranged for import of car, kept the car till its sale, made sale in the guise of loan and ultimately got the money encashed with the help of Shri Rashid Abbas Sathi which he received in the name of Shri Barot Pabu Devandh. The act of the appellant of omission and commission rendering the said car liable for confiscation. Hence the appellant is liable for penal action under Section 112(a) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... informed accordingly availability of the vehicle from same and he has negotiated the price of the vehicle with the appellant and Shri Afzal Khan. She submitted that Shri Afzal Khan was the main broker who was known to Shri Shailendra Singh and the appellant was the sub-broker and in this case Shri Afzal Khan has been exhonorated. She further submitted that the importer continue to be owner of the vehicle even though the vehicle was handed over to Shri Shailendra Singh as security for the loan taken by the importer particularly since the certificate of registration and insurance policy of the vehicle were in the name of importer. She further submitted that in alternate of the above submissions, the deal may be termed as an agreement to sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd were encashed through one Shri Rashid Abbas Sathi. Further, he submitted that the importer never came into the picture. Only the appellant got signature of the appellant on the transfer documents of the vehicle and deal was done by the appellant. He also reiterated the impugned order and submits that the adjudicating authority has rightly imposed the penalty on the appellant. He prayed that although the Revenue is not in appeal, the quantum of penalty is to be enhanced in such a case. 7. Heard both sides. On careful examination of the submissions made by both the sides, I find 8. that in this case the importer/seller Shri Barot Pabu Devandh imported the vehicle on Transfer of Residence Scheme and as per the public notice, that said v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hicle at their address. He further admitted in his statement that the appellant had already given the transfer documents duly signed by the importer/seller in March 2003 but as per the condition of Transfer of Residence Scheme, the vehicle could not get transfer within two years of its import . During the course of investigation the statement of Shri Rajesh Anujan, 9. CHA was also recorded and as per his statement, he submitted that the importer/seller has been referred by the appellant for the clearance of the impugned vehicle and also admitted that Shri Yousuf Poonawala/appellant undertook to prepare documents saying that vehicle is in the possession of M/s. Percept Group of Companies under the loan agreement and also assured that he wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out within two years. From the factual matrix of the case, it comes out that the sale took place of the impugned vehicle in March 2003 i .e. within 2 years of its import against the deal between the appellant and Shri Shailender Singh in February 2003. As per definition of sale in Sale of Goods Act, 1930 the sale completes when the possession of goods transferred to the buyer for a price. In this case, the sale is complete as the possession of the vehicle has been transferred to Shri Shailender Singh by the appellant against the payment of Rs. 39 lakhs in March 2003. Hence, it is admitted fact that the appellants were directly involved in the negotiations of sale of the impugned vehicle intentionally that vehicle cannot be sold within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
