|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 246 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1091 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Levy of Penalty u/s 112 for wrong filing of Bill of entry on the employee of CHA - Revocation of ID Card - Held that:- So for imposition of penalty upon the appellant is concerned , it is observed from the case records that he was not authorized by his employee M/s. Lee & Muirhead Pvt Ltd to make entries in the registers on behalf of another CHA. Appellant not only produced a forged test report from CFL but also filed a bill of entry No. 2697 dt 21/07/2006 without filing of IGM. These facts and contraventions have been clearly reflected in Para- 25 of the show cause notice dt 16/10/2006 issued to the appellant. imposition of penalty ₹ 1 lakh upon the appellant ordered by the Adjudicating authority under Sec 112 of the Customs Act 1962 and the same is upheld
Revocation of ID Card - no show cause notice has been issued by the appropriate authority issuing such card, to revoke the card. On verification of the show cause notice dt 16/10/2006, issued interalia, to the appellant we find it so. It is also observed that there is no provision in the Customs Act 1962 to revoke an identity card issued to the appellant. Accordingly we hold Adjudicating Authority was not justified in revoking the Identity card of the appellant for which no show cause notice was issued. Order passed by the Adjudication authority regarding revoking Identity card No. 113/CA/LC is set aside - Decided partly in favour of appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1090 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
100% EOU - appellants failed to install Secondhand Textile Machinery (capital goods) within the stipulated time of one year, or within the extended period - Confiscation of goods - exemption under Notification No. 53/1997-Cus dated 03.6.1997 as amended by Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.3.2003 - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that:- The goods were allowed to be imported and the duty on the same was exempted for a specific purpose, as per the conditions of the exemption notification (supra) and the appellant was bound by the conditions. On failure to comply with those conditions, the goods are not eligible for the exemption provided by the said notification and they are liable to pay applicable customs duty.
In Macmillan India Limited (2007 (10) TMI 186 - CESTAT, BANGALOR), the goods related to Information Technology and export obligations were already met. In Paras Fab International (2010 (6) TMI 184 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), the issue was whether the entire premises of 100% EOU should be treated as warehouse, and whether for captive consumption within the bonded premises, ex-bond bill of entry has to be filed and duty paid. The issue in Gemini Metal Works (1984 (12) TMI 314 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) related to cancelation of license and is not relevant in the instant case. On the other hand, we find our views are fortified by the decisions of this very Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Siddeshar Spinning Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Bhavnagar [2013 (9) TMI 585 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], which had also followed the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Nava Bharat Enterprises Limited - [2009 (12) TMI 396 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], Philips India Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - [2000 (12) TMI 195 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] and Taurus Novelties Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore - [2004 (7) TMI 162 - CESTAT, BANGALORE].
The demand of duty with interest would suffice the cause of justice in the instant case and confiscation of the goods and penalty on the appellant are not warranted. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1089 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Imposition of penalty on Director - Held that:- Commissioner was of the opinion that penalty shall be imposable on the Managing Director, he did not finally impose. But to rectify his mistake, he issued a Corrigendum on 4.3.2004 imposing a penalty of ₹ 25,000/- on the Managing Director. Penalty being imposable on the basis of mens rea, it should be on a personnel of the Managing Director but not on his designation. Therefore, the Corrigendum which has no force in the eyes of law does not become enforceable - Decided in favour of appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1047 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revocation of CHA License - Forfeiture of security deposit - Held that:- Appellant has an alternative remedy of appeal to Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Regulation 21 of the Customs Brokers License Regulations, 2013 r/w Section 129(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, we see no reason to entertain the appeal - period of limitation for filing an appeal has been now expired. But the order in original was dated 20.10.2014 and the writ petition was filed by the appellant on 05.11.2014, within a period about 16 days. The writ petition ultimately came to be dismissed by an order dated 15.07.2015 and the above appeal was filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, the period during which the appellant has prosecuting the remedy before this Court, has to be excluded while calculating the period of limitation for filing a statutory appeal. - Decided against appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1046 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Suspension of CHA License - Appellants were prohibited to operate at Mumbai Customs Commissionerate - Held that:- Present case is squarely covered under the Hon’ble High Court order in appellants' own previous case, where we find that the adjudicating authority after suspension of the license SCN has been issued under Regulation 20 for revocation of license, which was before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court set aside the entire proceedings, the question of continuation of suspension does not arise. - impugned order suspending the CHA license is set aside - Decided in favour of Appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1045 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Denial of the benefit of EPCG license - Import of cars - export obligations - cars were not put to proper use inasmuch as they were not used for providing transport facilities to the guests of the hotel to earn foreign exchange. - cars were insured as personal vehicles - cars were carrying the registration number in the incorrect colour code and different perceptions about the use to which the cars were put. The statements of drivers indicate that the cars were used by the Directors - benefit of Notification No. 97/2004-Cus dated 17.6.2004 - Held that:- Condition for import clearly stipulates that the car imported by HEL were to be used by HEL in their service industry - Handbook of Procedure mandates that every EPCG authorisation holder has to maintain for a period of three years from date of redemption, a true and proper account of exports/supplies made and services rendered towards fulfilment of export obligation. This Policy does not envisage that a service provider importing the goods under EPCG authorisation will have to change the character of service depending upon the goods imported which means that a hotel importing laundry equipment will have to render service of washing clothes of foreign tourists and earn foreign exchange in the process. Therefore, it cannot be construed that hotel importing cars will have to provide transportation to the foreign tourists and earn foreign exchange in the process. It only means the cars are to be used by HEL for providing hotel services to foreign guests.
The export obligation means in relation to importers rendering services receiving payments in freely convertible foreign exchange for the services rendered through the use of capital goods. Therefore, the export obligation in relation to HEL rendering hotel services means receiving the payment in convertible foreign exchange for the hotel services rendered through the use of cars by HEL. - cars have been used by HEL for providing hotel services to foreign guest by using the car by their Directors. It is not the case of the Revenue that these cars were not used by Directors who are ultimately managing the hotel. Therefore, in this case the cars have been indirectly used by HEL in providing hotel service to foreign guest. It is not the case of the department that the cars have not been put to such indirect or lateral use to discharge for export obligation. The custom notification does not provide for such indirect or lateral use of the capital goods imported under EPCG scheme.
The export obligation for the importer rendering service means receiving payment in convertible foreign exchange for service rendered through the use of capital goods. Therefore, if the cars were used directly or indirectly for providing the hotel services from which the foreign exchange is earned, the conditions no where suggest that the nature of service to be provided by the importer or to be governed by the type of capital goods provided. As in the case of other goods like lift and chair do not envisage the use by foreign tourist, the car are to be used by foreign tourist, implying thereby that while other capital goods could be used indirectly or laterally, the cars could not be so used and were to be used by foreign tourists. - HEL has not obtained export obligation discharge certificate and the licences have not been redeemed and during the course of adjudication, HEL has been able to show that the cars in question have been used by the foreign tourist and that is intended the use and there was (still) time available to discharge export obligation and so the action by DRI was premature. - proceedings initiated against HEL and its Directors for violation of condition of notification or the EPCG licence are not sustainable as the same are pre-mature as HEL is still in possession of the cars and registered the same as tourist vehicle. Consequently, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1044 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Enhancement of value on the second hand plant and machinery (entire refinery) imported by the appellants under 123 Bills of Entries, and cleared through Chennai, Pondicherry, Karaikal and Cuddalore ports - different approach by different authorities for valuation - Held that:- On perusal of the contract agreement entered with the foreign supplier M/s. UHDE, Gmbh, Germany, we find that it is for the supply of entire refinery equipments from the existing mobil refiney, Germany on “as is where is condition” and includes dismantling, packing, freight etc. As per the terms of the agreement, the existing mobil refinery to be dismantled and supplied to the appellant s site. As per the scope of the contract, and article (2) of the agreement , the said contract covers supply of refinery equipments including containers and documentation from outside India as per the Annexure-A and includes dismantling, shifting services as listed in Annexure-B. The entire refinery equipment will be delivered at CIF terms to the Ports viz Chennai, Pondicherry, Karaikal and Cuddalore. As per article 4 of the agreement, the consideration for the supply of the second hand refinery equipment was around 220 million DM. Vide amendment to the said contract agreement dated 09.04.99, it has been enhanced.
Consequent on the finalization of five bills of entries by Chennai Customs, the jurisdictional authorities at Pondicherry, Cuddalore and Nagapattinum have taken up the finalization of assessment of the B/Es and finalized and loaded the value by simply relying the Chennai Customs order dated 04.03.2011. No independent findings given for rejecting the transaction value. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) Trichy had upheld the impugned order of loading the price by 2.195 times and LAA, Chennai set aside the OIO of the AC, Puducherry.
Adjudicating authorities at Puducherry, Cuddalore and Nagapattinam failed to determine the value of the second hand machineries in accordance with custom valuation Rules (CVR) read with Board’s Circular, instead adopted the percentage of loading done by the DC, Chennai. Interestingly, we find that the two LAAs passed two contra orders, one upheld the OIO of Cuddalore and other LAA set aside the OIO of Puducherry, resulting in both assessee and revenue are before this Tribunal. It is pertinent to see that the order of DC, Chennai, which is adopted by other three authorities is non-exist now as the same has been set aside by LAA, Chennai order dated 27.7.2012. Therefore, in view of the peculiar nature of this case and considering the overall circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, we are convinced that it is a fit case to be remanded to the original authority - whole issue relates to a single project and relates to a single refinery plant to be set up at Cuddalore and requires to examine and re-determine the value afresh by original authority. - Matter remanded back - Appeal disposed of.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1043 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - Rule 4 - includibility/ non includibility of the expenses on advertising and sales promotion etc. - Related person - transaction value of identical goods - Held that:- It is pertinent to note that the appellant has conceded that the appellant and the supplier being related persons and Revenue was justified in having reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared. In terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rule, 2007, this is sufficient to allow determination of value as per Rules 4 (onwards) of the said Valuation Rules.
Distribution agreement does not specify any amounts which are required to be so spent and the approval to be obtained for incurring expenses cannot be read to mean that the exporter had the right to dictate as to how much amount the appellant was required to spend in these areas. Further, such sales promotion / advertisement cannot be said to be for the benefit of exporter alone inasmuch as the appellant also would get the benefit thereof and therefore to treat this entire amount as additional consideration for import of goods in order to arrive at the loading factor is not sustainable.
But as stated earlier, we are only concerned with Rule 4 of CVR, 2007 (which the adjudicating authority has used for loading the value) and not with Rule 10 thereof while the contention of ld. DR falls within the ambit of Rule 10 (which has not been used by the adjudicating authority to arrive at loading) and for this reason it is not necessary to discuss this contention of ld. DR or for that matter the contention of the appellant that expenses incurred were not incurred as condition of sale of goods and so the judgments cited by both sides regarding inclusion (or otherwise) of the expenses incurred by the appellant in the assessable value in terms of Rule 10 do not remain germane to the issue - loading of 12.5% is not sustainable in terms of Rule 4 of the CVR, 2007 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1042 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Confiscation of import of whole yellow Peas - dutiable or prohibited goods unloaded or attempted to be unloaded l into the two substituted barges - Penalty u/s 112 - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that:- It is observed from the case records and the record of the personal hearing held before the Adjudicating authority that all the three representatives appearing for the present appellants pleaded guilty during adjudication proceedings and requested leniency. This factual aspects have also been recorded by the Adjudicating authority towards the end of para 20 of the Order-in-Original dated 08.07.2014. It is observed that various issues raised by the appellants in their grounds of present appeals, as well as during the course of hearing, have not been deliberated upon by the Adjudicating authority as these issues on merits were not raised before him. In the interest of justice we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to the Adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh after taking on record the submissions made by the appellants on merits in these proceedings. Accordingly Order-in-Original dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Adjudicating authority is set aside and case is remanded back to him to decide the same in denovo proceedings - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre deposit - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that:- At the time when the appellant filed an appeal against the first order in original dated 29.3.2011, the Tribunal entertained the appeal without any pre-deposit condition and disposed of the appeal at that stage itself. As a matter of fact, the appellant was better off with the first order in original dated 29.3.2011. At that time, he had the option of redeeming the goods upon payment of ₹ 20 lakhs. - appellant is worse off and the Department is better off with an order directing permanent confiscation of the goods worth ₹ 82,83,633/-. Therefore, the question of hardship that could be caused to the appellant has not been examined in the proper perspective by the Tribunal in the impugned order - Pre deposit amount reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1001 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Fulfillment of export obligation - advance license - petitioner had imported certain consumables without payment of duty with an export obligation of granite tiles - failure to produce such evidence, show cause notice was issued asking the firm to submit the documents showing export obligation fulfillment - Held that:- When the petitioner failed to produce any documents whatsoever of having discharged the export obligation, we see no infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below. By merely stating that the FIR was lodged for lost documents, petitioner cannot substitute the requirement of production of documents demonstrating export obligation. We may recall even this reaction from the petitioner came long after the period for filing relevant documents before the authorities had lapsed. The firm, in the meantime, was already declared defaulter for being unable to fulfill export obligation. It was only in response to show cause notice issued by the authorities that for the first time, the petitioner took the stand that the documents could not be produced since they were lost - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1000 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Confiscation of imported goods being warp cut pile fabrics - velvet effect - Denial of the benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CX dated 09.07.2004 - Classification under under CTH 58013711 or CTH 50079090 - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that:- If the appellant had been aware of the intelligence received by DRI then amendment should have been sought exactly for the description as per the details found during examination of the goods. The amendment was sought only as per the e-mail dated 03.11.2014 received from the supplier of the goods which was not the actual description found on examination. Accordingly we are of the view that oral request for amendment was made on 03.11.2014 and appellant was not aware of the exact description of goods at the time of filing the bill of entry that a part of the goods will be fabrics of CTH 5801. Appellant also asked for 100% examination of the imported goods and there was an option from the seller of the goods to return the same. However, as the amendments sought was not for the correct description of goods, therefore, the same could not have been allowed by the Adjudicating authority. However, reasoning of Adjudicating authority for rejection, that amendment application was filed after receipt of DRI intelligence, is not correct as appellant has not sought the exact description of goods in the written amendment application dated 10.11.2014. It is accordingly held that request for amendment was not influenced by the intelligence received by DRI.
Goods imported by the main appellant are warp cut pile fabrics whereas velvet effect can be obtained both by “uncut pile” as well as “warp cut fabrics”. As per above distinctions available an “uncut pile fabrics” will be classifiable under CTH 58013711 and 58013719 but all such uncut pile fabrics need not be known as velvets. On the other hand warp pile fabrics (including cut velvet) will be classifiable under CTH 58013720. Scientific literature furnished by the appellant do indicate that there are categories of uncut pile fabrics in the market which are also known as velvets (Epingle & Terry Velvet). Corresponding entries under Customs Tariff for Cotton Velvet fabrics are 5801 2710 & 5801 2720 but the word “velvet” has not been mentioned in these classification at all. The crucial words are “warp pile fabrics, cut” (58012710) & other (5801 2720). Thus more important in the classification of a fabric under 5801 3711/19 and 5801 3720 will be the “cut” or “uncut” nature of “warp pile”. Accordingly we are of the considered opinion that stand of the Adjudicating authority and the learned A.R., that all categories of “velvet” fabrics will invariably fall under 5801 3711, is not correct and is rejected.
So far as exemption from CVD under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 is concerned, the case of the appellant is that no CENVAT Credit used in the manufacture of imported goods could have been taken as the same were not manufactured in India - appellant are entitled to CVD exemption under Notification No.30/2004 dated 09.07.2004.
Appellant came to know about the discrepancy and mix up in some of the imported goods as per e-mail dated 03.11.2014 from the supplier and appellant made a bill of entry amendment request as per the changed description given by the supplier of the goods. Existence of such an e-mail and its receipt by the appellant is not disputed. If the appellants had come to know of the investigation being conducted by DRI then they could have given the exact description of the goods found during physical examination. There is no evidence on record that appellants had prior knowledge of the exact description of goods and we hold that the conclusions drawn by Adjudicating authority are based on presumptions and surmises. Under the existing factual matrix orders regarding confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties upon the appellants and confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not justified and are set aside - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 999 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Suspension of CHA license - Misdeclaration of country of origin - Held that:- Suspension of CHA licence and revocation of licence originated on account of investigations initiated by DRI based on the intelligence on the alleged import of PVC flex banners in respect of seven IEC holders i.e. including Jeyam Impex and 7 others who filed various Bills of Entries for import of PVC flex banners. It is alleged that IE codes of these firms were lent to persons to import the goods who in turn misdeclared the country of origin as Malaysia to evade anti-dumping duty as the said goods are actually originated from China and not from Malaysia. During the investigation proceedings, the appellant's CHA licence was suspended on 18.11.2013 and the same was continued vide another order dt. 12.12.2013. On perusal of the findings in the order, we find that the appellant failed to inform the department of filing of IE code who are not IEC holders and also failed to verify KYC norms.
Even though the investigation was completed in the year Nov 2013, till date no proceedings initiated nor any SCN issued to importers and other persons for the alleged misdeclaration of goods for evasion of anti-dumping duty. Only after issuance of SCN under Customs Act where the charges are brought out only, then authority can allege whether IE code belongs to another person and who is actual importer etc. and the role played by appellant leading to evasion of ADD can be taken as ground for taking any action under CHALR. We failed to understand the reasons for initiating revocation of CHA licence based on the alleged contravention of lending of IE code when no SCN was issued under Customs Act. - SCN itself is premeditated one and violated principles of natural justice. In view of the High Court's order on this account also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 998 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Classification of goods - whether the paddle wheel aerators and its parts imported and cleared are classifiable under Chapter 8436 as other agricultural, horticultural machines or under Chapter 8479 as machines having individual functions not elsewhere specified as held by the department - Held that:- Appellant had imported paddle wheel aerators under Bills of Entry mentioned above and classified under chapter 87368090. It is not disputed that the paddle wheel aerators are used in aquaculture and its activities are part of aquaculture. Aquaculture is also known as aqua farming, ie., farming of aquatic organisms such as fish, crustaceans, molluses and aquatic plants - paddle wheel aerators are used for fisheries/aqua culture and are classifiable under chapter heading 8436 of the CTH. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 997 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Duty demand - Misdeclaration of goods - Imposition of interest and penalty - Held that:- There is no dispute that the mis-declared goods have been imported under the name of the proprietorship firm of Shri Bipin J Shah. He has also filed Bill of Entry and pre-deposited ₹ 25 lacs towards differential duty for all the 11 consignments of the impugned goods during investigation. Therefore, we find that Shri Bipin J Shah cannot escape from the mischief of importation of mis-declared goods. Therefore, the duty of ₹ 17,51,707/- demanded from his proprietorship firm, under the impugned Order in Original, alongwith interest as applicable, is upheld.
Penalty on co-appellants are upheld - Decided against Assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 996 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Claim of interest on refund of the redemption fine, penalty and differential duty - delayed refund - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the provisions of Section 27A and allowed refund from the expiry of three months from the date of application under Section 27 (1). This is what the Section 27A prescribes. Refund has to be allowed as per provisions as it existed at the time when refund arose as a consequence of Tribunal order. Further more I find that the learned Counsel has failed to point out any authority which allows interest on the refund of fine and penalty. The Section 27A clearly covers only the payment of interest on duty. Since there is no such provision in law, the same cannot be allowed. - Decided against Assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 931 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre-deposit - mandatory or not - Recovery of custom duty - Held that:- Since there was only one show cause notice which resulted into one order of adjudication passed by the Commissioner, we wonder whether the petitioner was even obliged to file a separate appeal. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it received one show cause notice and was visited with one final order of adjudication. Its liability, therefore, was to file a single appeal challenging such order of the Commissioner. It may be for convenience and better appreciation of issues that the Tribunal insisted for separate two appeals. - when the petitioner merely re-presented the appeal which was already filed for the purpose of challenging the consolidated order of the Commissioner under both the laws, such filing of appeal must be seen as a continuation of the original proceedings and fresh presentation of the appeal would relate back to the original date of filing the appeal. The issue can be seen from another angle. If by the time the petitioner presented the fresh appeal within the time permitted and directed by the Tribunal, the period of limitation had expired, would such appeal be rejected as time-barred.
It becomes clear that the amended section 129-E of the Customs Act with effect from 06.08.2014 would not apply to both the appeals of the petitioner which are pending before the Tribunal. The petitioner would, therefore, be governed by the original section 129-E as it prevailed prior to 06.08.2014. The petitioner had a right to seek waiver of predeposit. The Tribunal would, therefore, restore such appeal and decide the same in accordance with law, after first deciding the petitioner's application for waiver of pre-deposit. For such purpose, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 930 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revocation of CHA License - Forfeiture of security deposit - penalty under Regulation 18 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 - Held that:- Licence granted to the respondent herein had expired, on 24.2.2015, and therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned are academic in nature. It is noted that the respondent herein had submitted an application, dated 9.1.2015, for the renewal of Customs Brokers Licence. It is also noted that the impugned show cause notice issued by the appellant, dated 5.3.2015, has been issued, under Section 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, for the revocation of the licence issued to the respondent herein and for other consequences. In view of the fact that the licence issued to the respondent had expired on 24.2.2015, this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter in depth, except to state that the impugned notice issued by the appellant, dated 5.3.2015, is beyond the period of limitation of 90 days prescribed under the relevant Regulation, taking note of the fact that the investigation report had been received, by the appellant, on 29.5.2012, as stated in Paragraph-6 of the common counter affidavit filed by the respondent, on 26.10.2015 - it is clear that it would be open to the appellant to consider the application of the respondent for the renewal of the licence, taking into consideration all the relevant factors, prescribed by law - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 929 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - Provisional release of goods - Held that:- Show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner inter alia requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount of ₹ 35,00,000/- deposited voluntarily during investigation should not be appropriated against the demand raised in the said show casue notice. This means that till there is an adjudication consequent upon the said show cause notice, the said sum of ₹ 35,00,000/- cannot be appropriated against the said demand. In other words, the said sum of ₹ 35,00,000/- is available to the petitioner for adjustment towards the differential duty which has been required to be deposited by virtue of the provisional release order dated 29.04.2015 - sum of ₹ 35,00,000/-, which was voluntarily deposited by the petitioner, ought to be adjusted against the estimated differential duty of ₹ 33,87,526/-, which has been indicated in the provisional release order. The respondents are directed to release the said goods within ten days subject to the other conditions being complied with. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 928 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Restoration of appeal - Waiver of pre deposit - Import of machinery at a concessional rate of duty - appellant failed to achieve that target. Extension of time was sought by the appellant and the target period was extended up to 19.1.2007 - Levy of penalty - Held that:- Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal was directed to report to the bench on 7.2.2012. However, on 7.2.2012 itself, the appeal was dismissed on the failure of the appellant to make the deposit. It is stated in the appeal before this Court that the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant at the time of clearance of the consignment was in existence at the relevant time. This Court extended the time for pre-deposit by another two months as per the judgment dated 10.2.2012. A situation has arisen now that the judgment passed by this Court cannot be implemented, since, by that time, the tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant - it is only just and proper to grant an opportunity to the appellant to pursue the appeal on merits and allow them to make pre- deposit - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
