|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 424 Records
-
1999 (4) TMI 104
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Leased to Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB).
2. Disallowance u/s 43B on Deferred Sales Tax.
3. Addition of Lease Rent.
4. Disallowance of Garden Maintenance Expenses.
Summary:
Issue 1: Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Leased to RSEB
The assessee claimed depreciation on Water Pollution Control Equipment leased to RSEB. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim, asserting the transactions were sham, primarily aimed at availing 100% depreciation to reduce tax liability. The AO argued that the transactions lacked genuine purchase and delivery of assets, and were collusive to defraud the Revenue. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, however, ruled that the transactions were not sham as consideration was paid, and the assessee was entitled to depreciation as per Circular No. 9 of 1943 and relevant case laws. The Tribunal also found that the assets were indeed used by RSEB and the valuation report provided by the assessee was reliable. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow depreciation of Rs. 1,23,85,750.
Issue 2: Disallowance u/s 43B on Deferred Sales Tax
The AO disallowed Rs. 25,39,770 under section 43B on account of deferred sales tax. The Tribunal, relying on precedents including the case of Morvi Horological Industries v. ITO and CIT v. K.N. Oil Industries, held that the disallowance was not justified and directed its deletion.
Issue 3: Addition of Lease Rent
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,09,583 being the amount of lease rent under contractual obligation. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim.
Issue 4: Disallowance of Garden Maintenance Expenses
The AO disallowed Rs. 8,549 out of garden maintenance expenses, suspecting they were not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal found the disallowance to be based on surmises and conjectures and directed its deletion.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal granting relief on the issues of depreciation and deferred sales tax while upholding the disallowance of lease rent and deleting the disallowance of garden maintenance expenses.
-
1999 (4) TMI 103
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of compensation received.
2. Taxability of interest on delayed payment of compensation.
3. Applicability of section 45(5)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Assessment of compensation in the hands of the assessee's HUF.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Compensation Received:
The primary issue was whether the compensation received by the assessee for the compulsory acquisition of waste lands and trees in Zar and Dadigam villages is taxable. The tribunal concluded that the compensation for the waste lands and trees, which were self-growing and not nurtured by the assessee, could not be treated as agricultural income. The lands in question were waste lands, and no agricultural operations were carried out by the assessee. Therefore, the compensation received was liable to be assessed as capital gains under section 45.
2. Taxability of Interest on Delayed Payment of Compensation:
The tribunal examined whether the interest accrued on the enhanced compensation should be assessed in one lump sum in the year of receipt or year by year. It was determined that the right to receive interest accrued during the period relevant to the assessment year 1989-90, following the compromise agreement with the Government of Gujarat. The tribunal rejected the argument that interest accrued from year to year since 1954, stating that the right to receive interest arose only when the enhanced compensation was finally determined and agreed upon. Consequently, the interest amount of Rs. 6,53,685 was upheld for the assessment year 1989-90, and the interest amount of Rs. 1,72,156 for the assessment year 1987-88 was deleted.
3. Applicability of Section 45(5)(b) of the Income Tax Act:
The tribunal considered whether the enhanced compensation received during the assessment year 1989-90 was liable to be assessed under section 45(5)(b). The tribunal noted that the original compensation was awarded in 1959, and subsequent additional compensation claims were contested and litigated until a compromise was reached in 1988. The tribunal held that the additional compensation of Rs. 23,97,697 represented enhanced compensation as per section 45(5)(b). The enhanced compensation was deemed to be income chargeable under the head 'capital gains' in the previous year in which it was received.
4. Assessment of Compensation in the Hands of the Assessee's HUF:
The assessee contended that the compensation should be assessed in the hands of the members of the assessee's HUF due to a partition in the family. However, the tribunal rejected this claim, noting the lack of evidence supporting the partition. The tribunal upheld the tax authorities' decision to assess the enhanced compensation and interest in the hands of the assessee's HUF.
Conclusion:
1. The compensation received for waste lands and trees was liable to be assessed as capital gains under section 45.
2. Interest on the enhanced compensation was to be assessed in the year of receipt, i.e., assessment year 1989-90.
3. The enhanced compensation was taxable under section 45(5)(b) for the assessment year 1989-90.
4. The compensation and interest were rightly assessed in the hands of the assessee's HUF due to the lack of evidence of partition.
Judgment:
1. Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 4507/Ahd/1992 was allowed, deleting the interest amount of Rs. 1,72,156.
2. Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 4508/Ahd/1992 was dismissed, and the additional ground raised was also dismissed.
3. Department's appeal in ITA No. 4839/Ahd/1995 was allowed, and the order of the CIT(A) dated 26-9-1995 was canceled.
-
1999 (4) TMI 102
Issues involved: Determination of whether the product manufactured by M/s. Shree Girnar Cement Co. P. Ltd. is Cement chargeable to Central Excise Duty.
Analysis:
1. The central issue in the appeal filed by M/s. Shree Girnar Cement Co. P. Ltd. was to ascertain whether the product they manufactured was indeed Cement subject to Central Excise Duty. The case stemmed from a surprise check conducted by Central Excise Officers, revealing that bags reported to contain Sagol actually contained ordinary portland cement. Subsequently, a significant quantity of cement was seized, and the Collector, Central Excise, imposed penalties and demanded duty payment based on the findings that the product was mislabeled to evade duty payment.
2. The Appellants contended that their product was Sagol, not cement, citing exemption under a specific notification and emphasizing the adherence to I.S.I. specifications for marketing cement. They disputed the test reports and highlighted their bills labeling the goods as Sagol without charging excise duty. However, the absence of the Appellants during hearings and failure to provide evidence challenging the test reports and statements weakened their defense.
3. The arguments put forth by the ld. DR aligned with the Collector's findings, emphasizing the Manager's statement confirming the product as ordinary Portland Cement, lack of evidence challenging the Chemical Examiner's report, and admissions by supervisors regarding the production process. The ld. DR highlighted the penalty imposed by the Collector due to the magnitude of evasion and conscious misrepresentation by the Appellants, supported by various pieces of evidence.
4. Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal noted the Appellants' failure to substantiate their claim that the product was Sagol, not cement. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision based on the evidence presented, concluding that the Appellants had indeed manufactured and removed cement. The lack of contradictory test reports or substantial evidence supporting the Appellants' position led to the rejection of the appeal, affirming the original order.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the failure of the Appellants to provide compelling evidence to support their claim that the product in question was not cement. The judgment underscored the significance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence in legal proceedings, ultimately resulting in the rejection of the appeal.
-
1999 (4) TMI 101
Issues involved:
Whether the provisions of Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 are applicable in respect of refund of duty paid after the issue of the Notification providing for exemption.
Analysis:
1. Issue of Applicability of Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986:
The main issue in this case revolves around the applicability of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 to a refund claim made by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation. The Revenue argued that the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to the refund for the period in question, as the refund pertained to a period when the Notification providing for exemption was already in force. The Assistant Collector had confirmed a demand for duty, citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. However, the Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the claim arose from the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act and should be governed by its provisions.
2. Arguments and Counterarguments:
The Revenue contended that the refund claim was not made under sub-section (2) of the said Act, and therefore, the normal limitation period under Section 11-B should apply. On the other hand, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation argued that their customers had to complete certain processes after the amendment of the Notification, which delayed the relevant date for their claim. They claimed that assessments were provisional and that the Act should apply since they had submitted the refund claim with effect from the date of the amendment.
3. Decision and Rationale:
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that M/s. Indian Oil Corporation failed to demonstrate that the assessments for the relevant period were provisional as per the Central Excise Rules. The refund claims were filed after the expiry of the six-month period from the date of duty payment, and the period in question was after the issue of the amending Notification. As per Section 2(2) of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, duties collected but which would not have been collected if the notification had been in force must be refunded, with a time limit for filing refund applications. Since the amount confirmed pertained to a period prospective from the date of the notification, the Act's provisions were deemed inapplicable, leading to the setting aside of the Collector (Appeals) order and allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1999 (4) TMI 100
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Court No. III, New Delhi, in 1999, rejected an appeal regarding the classification of "Microvit E Promix 50" as a preparation for animal feeding under Heading 23.09 for Customs and 23.02 for Central Excise purposes. The respondents did not appear, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
1999 (4) TMI 99
The Supreme Court of India clarified that under the NDPS Act, the term "owner" refers to the registered owner of the vehicle. In a hire-purchase agreement, the appellant is considered the owner until full payment is made. Confiscation can occur if the vehicle is used for illegal activities, regardless of ownership status. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1999 (4) TMI 98
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dealt with four applications under the proviso to Section 35-F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their application for waiver of pre-deposit conditions. The Court found financial hardship and set aside the order for two appeals, requiring partial deposits. The total amount involved was over Rs. 71 lakhs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 97
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with mandatory provisions under Sections 50, 52A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act.
2. Admissibility of the voluntary confession statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions under Sections 50, 52A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act:
The appellant contended that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions under Sections 50, 52A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act, which should vitiate the trial. Section 50 mandates that searches must be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate if the accused so requests. The appellant argued that there was only partial compliance with Section 50 and no compliance with Sections 52A, 55, and 57.
The court analyzed whether Section 50 was applicable, noting that it applies when an officer searches a person under Sections 41, 42, or 43 of the NDPS Act. The court concluded that since the search was conducted on suspicion during a routine check and not based on prior information, Section 50 was not applicable. This position was supported by the Supreme Court ruling in State Of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, which clarified that Section 50 is not applicable in chance recoveries without prior information.
Regarding Sections 52A, 55, and 57, the court noted that the Central Government had issued a standing order detailing the procedure for the disposal of seized narcotic drugs, which was complied with. The court also held that Sections 55 and 57 are not mandatory, and non-compliance would not affect the prosecution's case unless prejudice was shown. Consequently, the appellant's contentions regarding non-compliance were rejected.
2. Admissibility of the Voluntary Confession Statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act:
The appellant challenged the admissibility of the voluntary confession statement (Ex. P3) recorded by the Customs Officer (P.W.6), arguing that it did not meet the mandatory requirements of Section 164(2) Cr.P.C., which requires a statutory warning that the accused is not bound to make a confession and that it may be used against him.
The court distinguished between Section 67 of the NDPS Act and Section 15 of the TADA Act, noting that Section 67 pertains to obtaining information for satisfying whether there has been a contravention of the Act, whereas Section 15 of TADA involves recording confessions with a statutory warning. The court held that Section 67 does not require a statutory warning and that the Customs Officer's recording of the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was admissible.
The court also referenced various judgments, including Divakaran v. State of Kerala and Pran Nath v. Union of India, which supported the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act without the need for compliance with Section 164 Cr.P.C. The court found that the appellant's statement was not retracted until the trial, indicating its voluntariness and truthfulness.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the conviction under Section 8(c) read with Section 23 of the NDPS Act and Section 135(a) of the Customs Act, finding no merit in the appeal. However, the sentence was modified to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with a default sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment.
-
1999 (4) TMI 96
The Supreme Court of India ruled that tyres not conforming to quality standards and returned after testing are not to be treated as scrap for Central Excise duty. The decision was based on a previous case involving Modi Rubber Ltd. Appeal was allowed with no costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 95
Issues involved: Classification and assessment of aluminium pieces subjected to processing, whether they belong to the aluminium section or as component parts of windows and doors, and their liability to duty under Tariff Item No. 68.
In the present case, the Tribunal considered three questions related to the classification and assessment of various products, including fully assembled windows, doors, shutters, and pieces subjected to processing like drilling, punching, and revetting. The focus of the appeal before the Supreme Court was on the classification and assessment of pieces subjected to processing, specifically whether they should be considered as aluminium sections not liable to duty or as component parts assessable under Tariff Item No. 68.
The Assistant Collector initially classified the products manufactured at the Bombay factory as excisable under Tariff Item No. 68. The Appellate Tribunal remanded the case for reconsideration, leading to the Appellate Collector classifying the products under T.I. No. 68. Similarly, products from the respondent's factory in Madras were classified as excisable goods under T.I. 68. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the Department on the first two issues but against the Department on the third issue regarding the classification of pieces subjected to processing.
The Tribunal determined that the respondent's activities related to the aluminium pieces did not amount to the manufacture of excisable goods. Citing precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that for an article to be considered goods, it must be something that can ordinarily come to the market. In this case, a clear finding was lacking regarding whether the pieces had acquired a distinct name, character, or use to be classified as goods. The burden of proof was on the Department to establish this, which was not done. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the pieces were not subject to excise duty and rejected the Department's claim that they were component parts of standardized frames and doors.
The Tribunal further clarified that tailor-made items could not be considered component parts but rather replacements. It noted that in certain circumstances, tailor-made items produced in large quantities could transition into standard items, potentially becoming subject to excise duty as component parts. However, such a determination would require specific evidence and findings by the authorities, which were absent in this case. The Supreme Court found no merit in the Department's appeal and dismissed it, with costs imposed on the parties.
-
1999 (4) TMI 94
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for waiving pre-deposit condition in a customs and central excise case. The petitioner's appeal for waiving pre-deposit was granted, with a requirement to deposit Rs. 1.5 lacs by a specified date.
-
1999 (4) TMI 93
The petitioner challenged an order requiring a 50% pre-deposit of adjudicated dues in a Central Excise appeal. The Commissioner waived the pre-deposit condition partially, but the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, fully waiving the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal.
-
1999 (4) TMI 92
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Central Excise Officer is debarred from arresting a person without a warrant under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Summary:
Issue 1: Authority of Central Excise Officer to Arrest Without Warrant
The primary question addressed in this judgment is whether a Central Excise Officer can arrest a person without a warrant if they have reasons to believe the person is liable to be punished under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Managing Director of M/s. GCUL Limited, claimed that the company, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, was exempt from paying Central Excise Duty. Allegations were made against the company for evading Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs. 40 crores. The petitioner and other company officials were summoned, and statements were recorded. The petitioner feared arrest and applied for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the court.
Legal Provisions Considered:
- Section 9A: Offences under Section 9 are deemed non-cognizable.
- Section 13: Empowers Central Excise Officers to arrest any person they believe is liable to punishment under the Act.
- Section 14: Authorizes officers to summon individuals for evidence or documents.
- Section 18: Mandates that searches and arrests under the Act follow the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Court's Analysis:
The court noted that Section 9A deems offences non-cognizable, implying that a police officer cannot arrest without a warrant. However, Section 13 provides Central Excise Officers with substantive power to arrest without a warrant if they have reason to believe the person is liable to punishment. The procedural safeguards of Section 18 ensure that arrests and searches are conducted in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that Section 13 confers substantive power to Central Excise Officers to arrest without a warrant, and Section 18 merely regulates the exercise of this power. The court rejected the petitioners' contention that no arrest could be made without a warrant and upheld the authority of Central Excise Officers to arrest without a warrant under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Final Judgment:
Both writ petitions were dismissed, and the court found no grounds to interfere with the actions of the Central Excise authorities. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 91
Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal for non-compliance of pre-deposit conditions under Section 35F of Central Excise Act.
Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal for dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner had been directed to pay a specific amount within a set period, with the balance being waived. However, the petitioner failed to comply with this order despite various opportunities. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit conditions. The petitioner argued that the demand was unjustified and that the Tribunal should have fully waived the pre-deposit conditions due to financial hardship. The Court noted that the Tribunal's order became conclusive after the dismissal of a related writ petition, leaving no option for the petitioner but to deposit the amount as directed. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was in accordance with the law, as Section 35F mandates the deposit of adjudicated dues or partial waiver for appeal entertainability. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were present and awarded costs to the respondents.
-
1999 (4) TMI 90
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing interest on delayed refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal's denial of interest was overturned as the petitioner was entitled to interest on the refund payment made after more than 3 months. The case was remanded back to the Tribunal to determine the amount of interest owed to the petitioner.
-
1999 (4) TMI 89
Issues:
Challenge to order of partial waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) directing a partial waiver of the pre-deposit condition under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner claimed Modvat credit for high-speed diesel oil used in electricity production for its factory manufacturing synthetic filament yarn, as allowed under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules. An amendment to Rule 57B clarified that inputs referred only to specified items. The Asstt. Commissioner disallowed Modvat credit and imposed a penalty, leading to the appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner partially waived the pre-deposit condition, noting the penalty issue revolved around a Rule interpretation question, and directed a deposit of Rs. 22.88 lacs. The petitioner contended the pre-deposit requirement was unjustified, given the strength of their case.
The matter involved a first appeal pending before the Tribunal, where the petitioner claimed compliance with Rule 57B for Modvat credit. The dispute centered on whether the petitioner could avail Modvat credit for HSD oil used in electricity production. The petitioner did not claim credit post the Rule amendment. The petitioner argued non-availment of credit for a specific period. In light of these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to require a deposit of Rs. 5 lacs under Section 35F, waiving the pre-deposit condition for the balance amount.
In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, modifying the Commissioner's order. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 5 lacs within 15 days, with the pre-deposit condition for the remaining amount waived for appeal purposes. The Court clarified that its observations would not bind the Commissioner during the appeal's merit consideration.
-
1999 (4) TMI 88
Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal regarding deposit of adjudicated dues under Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis:
1. Challenge to Tribunal's Order:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal directing the deposit of Rs. 3.5 lacs out of adjudicated dues of Rs. 7,23,116/- under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal waived the demand for the balance amount. The petitioner appealed against an order by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad, related to the disputed demand.
2. Interpretation of Rule 96ZP:
The petitioner operated a steel rolling mill under a scheme in Rule 96ZP framed under Section 3A of the Act. The rule allows duty abatement for factories not producing notified goods for a continuous period. The Commissioner's order denying abatement lacked reasoning, despite Rule 96ZP's applicability to hot re-rolled products.
3. Pre-deposit Requirement and Financial Hardship:
The Tribunal required pre-deposit of adjudicated dues for entertaining the appeal, but the proviso to Section 35F permits waiver if undue hardship is shown. The Tribunal observed the matter's contentious nature and lack of a strong prima facie case for waiver. The petitioner argued strong merits due to factory closure for over seven days, causing financial inability to pay the directed amount.
4. Judicial Decision:
The Court found the demand pertained to goods not produced, with undisputed factory closure. Acknowledging the contentious nature of the case, the Court noted the lack of specific financial hardship claims by the petitioner. Despite this, considering the factory's halted production, the Court deemed the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 3.5 lacs as causing undue hardship. Thus, the Court directed a nominal deposit of Rs. 50,000, waiving the balance pre-deposit requirement.
This judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the deposit of adjudicated dues under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the balance between financial hardship and procedural requirements in appellate proceedings before the Tribunal.
-
1999 (4) TMI 87
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the suspension of the Customs House Agent's Licence.
2. Requirement of immediate action and recording of reasons for suspension.
3. Availability and necessity of alternative remedies.
4. Judicial review of administrative actions.
Summary:
1. Legality of the suspension of the Customs House Agent's Licence:
The 1st respondent, holding a Customs House Agents Licence, was suspended via a memo dated 10-8-1998. The learned trial Judge found that some charges had been dropped and directed that unless an enquiry is initiated within seven days, the suspension would be quashed. The appellate court reviewed the relevant provisions and upheld the necessity of recording reasons for such suspension.
2. Requirement of immediate action and recording of reasons for suspension:
The court emphasized that Regulation 21(2) requires the recording of reasons for the immediate suspension of a licence. It was noted that the order dated 10-8-1998 contained serious charges against the respondent, including involvement in import scams and evasion of customs duty. The court found that the order did not suffer from non-application of mind and had sufficient reasons for suspension.
3. Availability and necessity of alternative remedies:
The appellate court acknowledged that an appeal to the Customs and Central Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal was a viable alternative remedy. However, given that the writ petition had been heard on merits and considering the decision in Hirday Narain, L. v. Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly, the court deemed it inappropriate to insist on the alternative remedy at this stage.
4. Judicial review of administrative actions:
The court reiterated that judicial review is limited to ensuring that administrative orders are not irrational or suffer from Wednesbury unreasonableness. The court found that the order of suspension was justified and did not warrant interference. However, it directed that the enquiry must be initiated within one month, failing which the suspension would stand revoked.
Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with directions to initiate the enquiry within one month, and no costs were awarded.
-
1999 (4) TMI 86
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petitions as infructuous. The order of confiscation of gold bars was made without the respondent's knowledge. The respondent can take further legal action against the confiscation order. The bank guarantee will not be returned to the respondent as the petitioners have custody of the confiscated gold.
-
1999 (4) TMI 85
The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal where the High Court of Karnataka quashed a criminal proceeding under Section 135(B)(2) of the Customs Act. The High Court's decision was deemed erroneous as confiscation under the Customs Act does not prevent criminal prosecution. However, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order due to the long lapse of time (18 years).
............
|
9911796707
