9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued soon
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal due to medical reasons, Stay application against penalty imposed under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: 1. Delay in filing appeal: The judgment begins by addressing the delay in filing the appeal, which was explained by the appellant's medical condition. The appellant suffered from acute jaundice, leading to bed rest as advised by a doctor. A medical certificate was submitted to support this explanation. The Tribunal allowed the condonation of the 68-day delay based on the satisfactory explanation provided by the appellant. 2. Stay application against penalty: The Tribunal then discusses the stay application filed by the appellant against the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the applicant for purchasing a Lexus Car at a significantly lower price than its actual value. The allegation was that the appellant knowingly dealt with goods liable for confiscation. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's purchase of the car at a low price indicated prima facie knowledge of the goods' questionable nature. As a result, the appellant was deemed liable for the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. 3. Pre-deposit of penalty: The Tribunal found that at the prima facie stage, the appellant had not presented a strong case to waive the pre-deposit of penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 10,000 within four weeks from the date of the order. Compliance was to be reported by a specific date mentioned in the judgment. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the delay in filing the appeal due to medical reasons and the stay application against the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, emphasizing the appellant's alleged knowledge of dealing with goods subject to confiscation. The Tribunal's decision to direct the pre-deposit of a specified amount highlighted the seriousness of the case and the need for compliance with legal obligations.
|
