Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1285 - AT - CustomsConfirmation of penalty, after 15 years of issue of show-cause notice on the Appellant, under Section 112 of the Customs Act - importation by a third party of ATMs and its Controllers for alleged mis-declaration of description and value of goods - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- On limitation, this Tribunal had specifically condoned the period of delay of 5 years and 4 months in filing the appeals by imposing cost of Rs.20,000/- that has been paid to the Respondent-Department. This being so and having been addressed by this Tribunal the ground that appeal is barred by limitation cannot be agitated again. In respect of the unusual delay in passing the Order-in-Original, law is well settled that such unusual delay vitiates the proceedings, on which count alone the appeals can be stated to have merit. Moreover, our attention is drawn to the copy of the letter of DRI dated 17.03.2020 addressed to the Commissioner (AR) CESTAT, Mumbai that clearly indicates that show-cause notice was not received by Appellant Mafatlal R. Mehta, and the same letter of DRI was issued upon perusal of their own records. Further, it also indicates that there was no proof of service of intimation of personal hearing of notices on Appellant Mafatlala R. Mehata. Unfortunately, he has been penalised in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In respect of Appellant bank, as could be observed during the course of hearing and from the case record, it is a subsequent purchaser of the goods form M/s. Philips India who had allegedly purchased the imported goods imported by Jiten P. Mody and no complacence is noticeable between the Appellant bank and the said Jiten P. Mody except that in the statement of Mr. Ramamrutham, former Philips India employee, it is stated that they considered the possibility of importing ATMs from Philips Holland to Philips India through 3rd party supplier and after obtaining quotation from the said importer Jiten P. Mody, they quoted price of the machine to banks namely Citibank and HSBC bank with 40% profit margin. This being a transaction concerning purchase of an item within India, which is unrelated to its importation and to the importer as the said transaction is confined between the Appellant Citibank and M/s. Philips India, confirmation of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act against this Appellant is unsustainable both in law and facts. Appeal allowed.
|