Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + Commission Customs - 2019 (1) TMI Commission This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1728 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, MUMBAIMaintainability of Application for settlement of dispute - the applicant Maheshchandra Sharma had been penalized earlier in another case of the applicant - Section 127L of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- It is a fact that Maheshchandra Sharma was imposed with a penalty in a case M/s. Anika Global Impex wherein the application for settlement was disposed of by an Order. The finding recorded in the order as it concerns imposition of penalty on Maheshchandra Sharma - It will be thus seen that Maheshchandra Sharma was imposed with penalty due to his role in undervaluation leading to evasion of duty and rendering the impugned goods (in the case of M/s. Anika Global Impex) liable to confiscation. It is notable that the findings of the Bench do not concern the status of Maheshchandra Sharma-whether “de facto owner” or otherwise. The statements of Maheshchandra Sharma and also of his son Aditya Sharma (in M/s. Anika Global Impex case) were recorded under Section 108 of the Act and are admissible as evidence against them. It was not the case of Maheshchandra Sharma that these statements were ever retracted. In view of Section 127L of the Act, Maheshchandra Sharma is not entitled to apply for settlement in the present case of M/s. Aditya International Trade Co. He being the proprietor of M/s. Aditya International Trade Co., both are legally indistinguishable and both the applications cannot be proceeded with under Section 127B of the Act. The applications for settlement are not admitted.
|