|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 652 Records
-
2002 (1) TMI 482
The appellant imported accessories of Fibre Optic Endoscope without an import-export code number. Authorities confiscated the goods and imposed fines, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the goods were for personal use and not for trade. CEGAT, Kolkata set aside the confiscation and penalties based on a previous decision. Appeal allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 480
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bangalore dismissed two appeals by the Revenue regarding Central Excise duty on spent palladium. The Tribunal found that the Department did not substantiate how the item is classifiable under Chapter 26. The Commissioner's analysis concluded that duty cannot be demanded on spent palladium, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
-
2002 (1) TMI 478
The appellant's appeal against a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh for smuggling goods was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The appellant admitted involvement in smuggling contraband goods and failed to provide any explanation, leading to the penalty and confiscation of goods and truck. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order as it was based on the appellant's own admission. The appeal was deemed to be without merit.
-
2002 (1) TMI 475
Issues Involved:
1. Availing Modvat credit on non-duty paid iron and steel scrap.
2. Appeal against the order of the Addl. Commissioner.
3. Determination of liability regarding the availed Modvat credit.
4. Prima facie case in favor of the appellants.
5. Pre-deposit requirement and stay of realization of confirmed duty and penalty.
Analysis:
1. The case involves the appellants manufacturing steel ingots and availing Modvat credit on iron and steel scrap. The Anti Evasion Officers found fictitious Central Excise Gate Passes for iron and steel scrap during a search, leading to proceedings against the appellants. The Addl. Commissioner confirmed a demand against the appellants and imposed penalties on them and individuals involved. The issue revolves around the availing of Modvat credit on non-duty paid iron and steel scrap, which the appellants claim they received under valid gate passes.
2. M/s. A.B. Tools Ltd. filed an appeal against the Addl. Commissioner's order, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). This rejection forms the basis of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, where the case is being reviewed.
3. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties regarding the availed Modvat credit. The appellants argued that they had received the iron and steel scrap as mentioned in the gate passes, enabling them to claim the credit. They contended that they were not aware of the duty status of the received scrap and highlighted the admissibility of deemed Modvat credit during the relevant period. However, the Tribunal noted that the gate passes were fictitious, issued by a non-existent entity, as confirmed by detailed evidence and discussions in the original order. The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case in their favor, leading to a directive for a pre-deposit to proceed with the appeal.
4. The Tribunal examined the appellants' profit and loss account, showing a significant loss despite substantial sales. While acknowledging the financial situation, the Tribunal directed a pre-deposit of a specific amount, allowing for the waiver of the remaining duty and penalty. The realization of the confirmed amounts was stayed pending the appeal's outcome, with a deadline set for compliance.
5. In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of availing Modvat credit on non-duty paid scrap, the rejection of the appeal against the Addl. Commissioner's order, the liability determination, the establishment of a prima facie case, and the pre-deposit requirement with a stay on the realization of confirmed duty and penalty. The detailed analysis and directive for compliance set the course for further proceedings in the case.
-
2002 (1) TMI 472
Issues:
Whether charges of inspection of goods by M/s. RITES for Indian Railways are to be included in the assessable value of Railway Equipment manufactured by M/s. Greysham and Co.
Analysis:
The appeal by M/s. Greysham and Co. raised the issue of whether inspection charges by M/s. RITES for Indian Railways should be part of the assessable value of the Railway Equipment. The appellant argued that as per previous judgments, inspection charges paid by customers, such as Indian Railways, were not to be included in the assessable value. They cited cases like Escorts Ltd. v. CCE, Shree Pipes Ltd. v. CCE, and CIMMCO Ltd. v. CCE to support their stance. On the other hand, the respondent contended that all expenses until the clearance of goods should be included in the assessable value, emphasizing that in this case, the goods were supplied to Railways before reaching a marketable stage. They referred to the decision in Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd. v. CCE to support their argument that testing costs should be part of the value if buyers insist on inspection before purchase.
The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and previous judgments. They noted that in the cases cited by the appellant, the goods were sold after quality control by the assessee's own department, which was not the scenario in the present case. The Tribunal highlighted that the decision on whether testing charges should be included in the assessable value depended on whether the appellants had their testing facility, a crucial detail missing from the record. Due to this missing information, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to ascertain this fact before making a decision. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further clarification on the presence of the appellants' testing facility.
In conclusion, the judgment focused on the inclusion of inspection charges in the assessable value of Railway Equipment manufactured by M/s. Greysham and Co. The Tribunal emphasized the need to determine if the appellants had their testing facility before deciding on the inclusion of testing charges in the assessable value. The case was remanded for further investigation into this crucial factual aspect to make an informed decision.
-
2002 (1) TMI 470
Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original for confiscation of gold biscuits, foreign currency, Indian currency, and attachie cases under Customs Act.
Analysis:
1. Recovery of Contraband Goods:
- The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original confiscating gold biscuits, foreign currency, and Indian currency from the appellant's premises.
- The recovery was made from the appellant's house, and the panchnama attested by witnesses confirmed the recovery.
- Although some witnesses later denied the recovery location, their credibility was questioned, and the evidence of police officials was deemed reliable.
- Lack of corroboration by public witnesses did not affect the admissibility of evidence, especially when police officials' testimony was credible.
2. Challenges to Impugned Order:
- The appellant challenged the impugned order on grounds of unproven recovery, inadmissible confessional statement, and lack of support from panchnama witnesses.
- The Commissioner's order was defended by the JDR, emphasizing its correctness.
- The confessional statement of the appellant, recorded at the spot, was accepted as evidence despite later retraction.
- The argument of coercion in obtaining the confessional statement was dismissed due to lack of evidence supporting such claims.
3. Legal Validity of Confessional Statement:
- The confessional statement was upheld as admissible evidence, despite retraction during criminal proceedings.
- Precedents cited regarding inadmissibility of confessions in the presence of police officials were deemed inapplicable due to lack of evidence of coercion in this case.
- The statement was recorded by customs officers, not police officials, reducing the likelihood of coercion.
4. Decision and Upholding of Order:
- The recovery of contraband goods, gold biscuits, and currency from the appellant's possession was deemed proven.
- The Commissioner's detailed reasoning behind the order was upheld as valid, with no substantial reason found to disagree.
- Consequently, the Commissioner's order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the judgment, including the challenges raised, the evidentiary considerations, and the legal validity of the confessional statement, leading to the final decision to uphold the Commissioner's order.
-
2002 (1) TMI 469
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi directed the appellants to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 3.5 lakhs by a specified date to stay the recovery of duty and penalty amounts. Failure to comply would result in the appeal being dismissed under Section 35F of the Act.
-
2002 (1) TMI 468
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi heard stay applications from appellants regarding duty and penalty amounts confirmed against them. The Commissioner found evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods without duty payment. The Tribunal directed specific pre-deposits for each appellant and stayed recovery pending appeal disposal. Non-compliance would lead to dismissal of appeals under Section 35-F of the Act. Compliance and further orders scheduled for 5-4-2002.
-
2002 (1) TMI 467
Issues: Confiscation of intercepted pesticides, Confiscation of excess goods, Disallowance of Modvat credit, Imposition of penalty
Confiscation of intercepted pesticides:
The case involved the interception of a tempo loaded with pesticides by Central Excise Officers. The officers found discrepancies in the documents related to the goods loaded in the tempo, leading to the seizure of the goods. Upon physical verification, an excise of goods valued at Rs. 17,77,205/- was found in excess of the recorded balance. The appellant's director admitted that the excess goods were not accounted for in the Central Excise records. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 5,14,825/- from the tempo. The Dy. Commissioner allowed the redemption of the confiscated goods on payment of a fine.
Confiscation of excess goods:
Regarding the excess goods found during verification, valued at Rs. 17,77,205/-, the Dy. Commissioner confiscated them but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. Additionally, Modvat credit of Rs. 3,73,571/- was disallowed, and a personal penalty of Rs. 1,83,363/- was imposed under Rule 173Q. The appellant's argument that the goods were not recorded due to the Central Excise audit team's presence was deemed unacceptable. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and the redemption fine as nominal considering the value of the goods.
Disallowance of Modvat credit:
The issue of disallowance of Modvat credit on drums, caps, and leads was raised. The appellant failed to provide evidence showing inclusion of the drum value in the final product's assessable value. The Dy. Commissioner noted the appellant's admission of wrong availment of Modvat credit, leading to the voluntary debiting of the amount in RG 23A Part II. As no further evidence was presented, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this part of the order.
Imposition of penalty:
A penalty of Rs. 1,83,363/- was initially imposed, which the Tribunal deemed excessive. Considering the facts of the case, evidence on record, and submissions made, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order with the modification of the penalty reduction, disposing of the appeal accordingly.
-
2002 (1) TMI 465
Issues:
1. Admissibility of the case before the Settlement Commission.
2. Interpretation of Section 32(O) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Admissibility of the Case:
The Applicant, along with co-noticees, filed an application before the Settlement Commission for the second time. In the previous application, they did not make a full and true disclosure, leading to its rejection. The current application involves admitting a duty liability of Rs. 8,24,07,911/- for the entire period mentioned in the show cause notice. The Revenue, although the initial duty demand was higher, does not object to admitting the case due to the Applicant's acceptance of a substantial duty liability. The Commission reviewed the submissions of both parties and found the application admissible based on the satisfaction of Section 32E requirements.
Interpretation of Section 32(O) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Commission examined the applicability of Section 32(O) to the case. Classes (i) and (ii) of Section 32(O) were deemed inapplicable as there was no previous settlement order or conviction. Class (iii) was also not relevant as the case was not sent back to the Central Excise Officer. The Revenue had no objection to the admission of the case, and the Applicant's admission of a reduced duty liability for the entire period allowed for the case to be entertained. Consequently, the Commission ordered the case to proceed under Section 32F(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
In conclusion, the Settlement Commission allowed the application to proceed, with the Applicant admitting a duty liability of Rs. 8,24,07,911/-. An amount already paid by the Applicant was to be adjusted, and the balance was to be paid within 30 days. The Commission emphasized compliance with Section 32-I of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and directed all concerned parties to be informed accordingly.
-
2002 (1) TMI 464
Issues:
1. Admissibility of interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as the latter had allowed the appeal by the appellants but had not discussed their prayer regarding the payment of interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that without a discussion on this prayer, it was not possible to determine whether the interest was permissible or not as per the law. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to pass a speaking appealable order on the prayer of the appellants after giving them an opportunity of hearing.
In response to the Tribunal's order, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) passed an order rejecting the plea for payment of interest. The Commissioner observed that the claim for interest was based on Section 27A of the Customs Act, which allows for payment of interest if any duty ordered to be refunded is not refunded within three months. However, in this case, the refund was in respect of a deposit made in compliance with the Customs Act, and the payment of interest under Section 27A did not apply to the refund of the deposit. Therefore, the Commissioner rejected the plea for interest payment.
During the appeal against the Commissioner's order, the representative of the appellants argued that the refund amount had not been sanctioned to them yet. The history of the case revealed that the appellants had not initially claimed interest on the refund amount. The Tribunal noted that since the party had never staked any claim for interest and had only sought the refund amount, the question of interest being admitted or rejected did not arise. The Tribunal suggested that the proper course for the appellants would be to stake a claim for interest as per the law before the original authority. The appellants were advised to claim the amount of interest admissible to them, and the original authority was directed to dispose of the claim by passing a speaking order as per the law.
In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of, emphasizing that the appellants should stake a claim for interest as per the law before the original authority to resolve the issue of interest payment on the refund amount.
-
2002 (1) TMI 463
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal of the appellants who were denied Modvat credit on steel structure as capital goods. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original authority for a detailed speaking order, considering the manufacturing process and relevant legal judgments. The appellants will have a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before a final decision is made.
-
2002 (1) TMI 462
Issues:
- Admissibility of Modvat credit on inputs
- Exemption from excise duty
- Remand order by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Maintainability of the appeal
Admissibility of Modvat credit on inputs:
The case involved a Government of India Undertaking engaged in manufacturing electrical/electronics machinery and parts. They were served a show cause notice for recovery of a specific amount on the grounds of availing Modvat credit on batteries that were claimed but not used in manufacturing activity. The appellants contested the notice, claiming the batteries were indeed used in their manufacturing activity. The Assistant Commissioner (A.C.) did not agree with their defense, confirmed the duty, and imposed a penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the A.C.'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.
Exemption from excise duty:
The appellants argued that the batteries in question were used in manufacturing captive power generation and distribution systems, which were fully exempt from excise duty under a specific notification. They contended that the Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing these exempt systems was admissible. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the exemption notification and previous orders, leading to the remand order for a fresh decision.
Remand order by Commissioner (Appeals):
The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that all their pleas were not considered before the Commissioner (Appeals) issued the remand order. However, the Tribunal found this argument to be misconceived. The Tribunal clarified that the appellants were not debarred from raising their defenses during the fresh decision process. The Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh after hearing the appellants, allowing them to present all their arguments and evidence.
Maintainability of the appeal:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the appellants as not maintainable. The Tribunal reasoned that since the duty liability and penalty confirmed by the A.C. were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants had no cause of action to appeal further. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable based on the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the subsequent actions taken.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to the admissibility of Modvat credit, exemption from excise duty, the remand order by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the maintainability of the appeal, providing a detailed analysis of each aspect of the case.
-
2002 (1) TMI 461
Issues:
1. Confiscation of ball bearings and Maruti Van.
2. Imposition of personal penalties on individuals involved.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Confiscation of Ball Bearings:
The case involved the confiscation of 62,000 pieces of ball bearings of foreign origin by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. The Customs Officers found a Maruti Van loaded with these ball bearings in front of a godown and subsequently seized them along with a diary containing relevant information. Two individuals present at the godown could not produce legal acquisition documents for the ball bearings, leading to the seizure. Further investigations revealed connections to firms in Nepal dealing with ball bearings. The show cause notice proposed the confiscation of the ball bearings and the Maruti Van, which culminated in the impugned order by the Commissioner.
2. Imposition of Personal Penalties:
In addition to the confiscation, personal penalties were imposed on the involved individuals. Statements of two individuals indicated that another person was the real owner of the ball bearings, who later claimed ownership of 39,000 pieces and produced a purchase bill from a cooperative store. The adjudicating authority doubted the claim since only a portion of the seized ball bearings was claimed, suggesting possible sale of the rest. However, the appellate tribunal found the reasoning based on assumption and presumption rather than legal grounds. It was argued that the ball bearings were freely importable without restrictions and the burden of proving illegal smuggling lay on the Revenue, which lacked direct evidence for such claims. Consequently, the confiscation of 39,800 pieces of ball bearings and the imposed penalty were set aside.
3. Decision and Precedents:
The tribunal referred to previous cases where confiscations were set aside due to lack of evidence and non-notification under customs laws. Citing relevant judgments, the tribunal held that without sufficient evidence of smuggling, confiscation without proof of illicit nature was not in accordance with the law. Ultimately, all appeals were allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants involved in the case.
-
2002 (1) TMI 460
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi heard a case where appellants sought waiver of duty and penalty amounts. The dispute was about the classification of the product under different chapter headings. The Commissioner (Appeals) held in favor of the Revenue. The Tribunal directed the appellants to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2,50,000 towards duty by a specified date to stay recovery and appeal dismissal.
-
2002 (1) TMI 457
Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act on the CHA without a proposal in the show-cause notice.
- Applicability of penalty under Section 117 in the absence of specific contravention or failure to comply with legal requirements.
- Obligation of the CHA under the CHA Licensing Regulations 1984 regarding payment of differential duty without delay.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by M/s. Lee & Muirhead Ltd., referred to as the CHA, against a penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty was related to a discrepancy in the Bill of Entry for imported goods, which led to delayed payment of differential duty by the importers. The CHA contended that the penalty was unjustified as there was no proposal for it in the show-cause notice and no contravention of the Customs Act by them. The Commissioner had previously warned the CHA about the lapse and condoned it, making the penalty unwarranted.
The appellant's counsel argued that the penalty under Section 117 could not be sustained as the show-cause notice did not propose such a penalty, and there was no finding of contravention or failure to comply with legal requirements by the CHA. The delay in payment of duty was attributed to the CHA, but it had been previously addressed and warned by the Customs authorities. The counsel emphasized that the penalty was not justified under the Customs Act, especially considering the absence of any proposal for penalty under Section 117 in the notice.
The Judge noted that the show-cause notice had proposed penalties under different sections, but those proposals were dropped during adjudication. The Commissioner had already warned and exonerated the CHA for the lapse in question. The Judge agreed with the appellant's arguments, stating that there was no basis for imposing a penalty under Section 117 without evidence of contravention or failure to comply with legal requirements. The delay in duty payment had been addressed through interest charges, and penalizing the CHA for the importer's delay was unwarranted. Consequently, the penalty under Section 117 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the CHA.
-
2002 (1) TMI 455
Issues Involved:
1. Duty liability and interest charges.
2. Financial position and payment installments.
3. Fulfillment of export obligations.
4. Jurisdiction and eligibility of the application.
5. Calculation of duty liability.
6. Penalty and immunity from prosecution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Duty Liability and Interest Charges:
The applicant admitted a duty liability of Rs. 1,23,81,895/- but later revised it to Rs. 1,16,49,093/-. The applicant contested the interest charges on the duty demanded, citing that interest could only be charged under statutory provisions. The Commission agreed that interest could only be charged after the determination of duty under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962, and thus, interest was not applicable until the duty liability was determined by the Commission.
2. Financial Position and Payment Installments:
The applicant highlighted financial difficulties, including loans from Corporation Bank and Industrial Development Bank of India, and requested to pay the duty liability in four equal installments. The Commission allowed the applicant to pay Rs. 20 lakhs initially and submit financial documents for further consideration of installment payments. The applicant complied by paying Rs. 20 lakhs and later Rs. 12,98,093/-.
3. Fulfillment of Export Obligations:
The applicant faced issues with fulfilling the export obligation due to market conditions and sought to include deemed exports and third-party exports in the calculation. The Commission required the applicant to provide legible certified copies of shipping bills and obtain a certificate from DGFT to verify export obligations. The applicant admitted to miscalculations and agreed to the DGFT's computation of duty liability at Rs. 1,21,90,562/-.
4. Jurisdiction and Eligibility of the Application:
The Revenue argued that the application did not disclose any new duty liability and should be rejected. However, the Commission allowed the application to proceed, directing the applicant to pay an initial amount and submit financial documents for further consideration.
5. Calculation of Duty Liability:
The Revenue calculated the duty liability at Rs. 1,23,33,557/-, which was slightly higher than the DGFT's provisional figure. The Commission accepted the Revenue's calculation for final settlement. The applicant's inconsistent disclosures and incorrect calculations in Indian Rupees instead of US Dollars were noted.
6. Penalty and Immunity from Prosecution:
The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on the applicant for inconsistent disclosures and lack of full and true disclosure. However, the applicant was granted immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, the Indian Penal Code, and the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Act for matters covered in the application. The Commission also provided immunity from interest charges under the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no provision for charging interest under the applicable notification.
Conclusion:
The Commission settled the case for a total customs duty of Rs. 1,23,33,557/-, imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs, and granted immunity from prosecution and interest charges. The applicant was directed to pay the balance amount and penalty within 30 days, with the order becoming void if obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
-
2002 (1) TMI 452
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bangalore dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue regarding 'Unjust Enrichment'. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers, and the burden of duty was borne by the manufacturer, leading to a refund being due to the appellants.
-
2002 (1) TMI 447
Issues:
Classification of imported sports shoes under Customs Tariff - Mis-declaration of retail price - Recovery of duty under different sub-heading - Confiscation of goods - Penalty imposition - Interest claim.
Classification under Sub-heading 6401.12:
The issue in this case revolved around the classification of Gold Star brand sports shoes imported by the appellant under the Customs Tariff. The appellants claimed that the shoes were eligible for assessment at a Nil rate of additional Customs duty under sub-heading 6401.12, as the retail sale price did not exceed Rs. 125 per pair. However, subsequent proceedings alleged mis-declaration of retail price and the shoes were sought to be reclassified under sub-heading 6401.19 as "other" footwear. The impugned order upheld the reclassification and mis-declaration charges, leading to duty demands, confiscation of goods, penalties, and interest claims.
Mis-declaration Allegation:
The appellants contested the mis-declaration charge, arguing that the sale price to retailers was below Rs. 125 per pair, and any higher retail prices were not by them or the retailers who purchased the imported shoes. They emphasized that the mere existence of higher-priced shoes of the same brand did not invalidate their declaration. The appellants highlighted that the absence of a retail price declaration on the goods did not disqualify them from classification under sub-heading 6401.12, as Section 4A of the Central Excise Act pertained to goods manufactured in India, not imported goods.
Legal Basis for Duty Recovery:
The Customs authorities contended that the short-levy of duty was clear and recoverable under Section 28 of the Customs Act. They argued that imported footwear was subject to additional Customs duty at the rate applicable to Indian-manufactured footwear under Chapter 64 of the Central Excise Tariff. The absence of a price declaration on the imported shoes rendered them ineligible for classification under sub-heading 6401.12, as per Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the recovery of short-levied duty was independent of the appellant's declaration regarding retail sale price.
Judgment and Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal found that the imported shoes lacked a price declaration, making them ineligible for classification under sub-heading 6401.12. The initial assessment at a Nil rate of duty was incorrect, leading to duty short-levy recoverable under the Customs Act. While the duty demands were confirmed, the confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, and interest claim were deemed legally unsustainable due to the absence of mis-declaration regarding price declaration on the packages. The dispute was characterized as purely legal, with the correct classification of the goods being under sub-heading 6401.19 as "other" footwear. The Tribunal upheld the duty demands but set aside orders related to confiscation, penalty, and interest, disposing of the appeals accordingly.
-
2002 (1) TMI 445
Issues:
1. Penalty imposed on Shri Pranab Sarkar.
2. Penalty imposed on Shri Bhabesh Ch. Mondal.
Analysis:
1. Penalty imposed on Shri Pranab Sarkar:
Shri Pranab Sarkar was intercepted with 3 gold biscuits of foreign origin secreted in his trouser's pocket. He admitted to transporting the gold for a fee without knowing its contents. The Commissioner upheld the penalty on him. The appellant argued that he was unaware of the gold's contents due to financial hardship. The Tribunal found that while Sarkar's financial state was poor, his involvement in transporting the gold was evident. Considering his financial situation, the Tribunal directed him to deposit Rs. 5,000 within ten weeks and waived the remaining penalty.
2. Penalty imposed on Shri Bhabesh Ch. Mondal:
Shri Bhabesh Ch. Mondal, the owner of the motor cycle used in the transportation, denied involvement in the smuggled goods. Both Sarkar's and Mondal's statements did not implicate Mondal. The Commissioner's reasoning that Mondal did not prevent the misuse of the motor cycle was deemed unconvincing. As no evidence linked Mondal to the smuggling, the Tribunal unconditionally allowed his stay petition. The Tribunal disposed of both stay petitions with different outcomes, with Sarkar directed to deposit Rs. 5,000 and Mondal's stay petition being allowed without conditions. Compliance was to be ascertained on a specified date for final disposal of the appeals.
............
|
9911796707
