|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 40 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 702
... ...
... ... ..... n is allowed and the Commissioner of Customs (P), Patna as well as the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds), Custom Headquarter, Patna are hereby directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs. 21,33,500.00 along with statutory interest (compound) at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 30.08.2001, the date on which the petitioner’s appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal till the actual date of payment. The said payments must be made by the said authorities to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which, they will have to face serious legal consequences. 18. However, the Customs Department will be at liberty to initiate a proceeding against its employees/officers, who are found to be responsible for sale of articles, loss of public exchequer and also for making the concerned file traceless and recover the loss to the Department from their pockets apart from punishing them for their aforesaid misdeeds.
-
2012 (3) TMI 614
... ...
... ... ..... late Authority is set aside and the matter remitted back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. 2. We accordingly allow this writ petition, set aside the aforesaidorder and remit the case back to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall give proper hearing to the appellant and take note of thesubmissions made by the appellant/its counsel and pass a speaking order. 3. Both the parties agree that they would appear before the AppellateAuthority on 21st March, 2012 at 10 30 a.m. 4. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2012 (3) TMI 609
... ...
... ... ..... , only in a printed format, on the cover, wrapper or container and not by way of a label stuck on them. 36.Further, the respondents have not been in a position to show that they have the power or authority to refuse the request of the petitioner, for taking the samples of the imported goods for the purpose of testing. As such, the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 12.1.2012, is set aside. The respondents are directed to make the necessary arrangements for taking the samples of the goods in question, imported by the petitioner, and to send the samples for testing, by the authorized laboratories, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the report from the laboratory concerned, the goods shall be released only if they are fit for human consumption, on the payment of the appropriate duty, as prescribed by law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 575
... ...
... ... ..... dingly.” This decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Arviva Industries (I) Ltd. reported in 2007 (209) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) 2008 (10) S.T.R. 534 (S.C.). 6. Since the issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the effect that the Circular No. 39/2001, dated 6-7-2001 will have effect prospectively, the petitioner, who have already been granted the benefit of drawback on the brand rate in terms of the letter of Ministry of Finance dated 6-7-2000, cannot be denied as the benefit has already been accrued and claimed. The impugned letters, under challenge revoking the benefit of brand rate already issued based on the Circular 39/2001-Cus., dated 6-7-2001, which will be effective prospectively, are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 574
... ...
... ... ..... tacharya, ASG, Mr. K Swami, Adv., Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv.-on-Record O R D E R Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 567
... ...
... ... ..... tand dismissed. Respondent shall also file the statement of case within four weeks from the date of statement of case filed on behalf of the appellant is served on it.
-
2012 (3) TMI 520
... ...
... ... ..... ll consider the application of the petitioner dated 20th December, 2011 and shall pass a reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of presenting a copy of the certified copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing and after verifying the records. At the time of hearing, the petitioner is at liberty to rely on judgments and documents in support of his contentions and the Respondent No. 2 in his reasoned order shall deal with the same. 5. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter and all points are left open to be dealt with by the Respondent No. 2. 6. Since the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission without calling upon the respondents to file affidavits controverting the allegations made in the petition, allegations are deemed not to have been admitted by them. 7. No order as to costs. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.
-
2012 (3) TMI 497
... ...
... ... ..... application itself was considered to be very essential for the just decision of the case. Obviously, the petitioner has failed in adducing the evidence which could meet the parameters of Section 245 (2) Cr. P.C. The lacuna was sought to be filled up by filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It has been held by the Court that the said section could not be used for the purpose of filling up such a lacuna. 9. There is another aspect of the matter which needs consideration. The petitioner has not only belatedly challenged the order dated 25.01.2011 for closer of evidence which have been challenged by way of revision but another mistake which has been committed by the petitioner is that it has challenged two different orders by the same petition which is not permissible in law. 10. For the reasons given herein above, I am of the considered opinion that, there is no merit in the petition, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 11. Let the Trial Court record be returned.
-
2012 (3) TMI 477
... ...
... ... ..... this order, the immunity to prosecution will be liable to be withdrawn against the concerned applicants/co-applicants. Bond/B.G. After payment of all the above duty, fine and penalty, the Bond and Bank Guarantees shall be discharged as per the procedure. 20.2 The above immunities are granted under sub-section (1) of Section 127H of the ‘Act. Attention of the applicant is also invited to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 127H ibid. 20.3 This order of settlement shall be void in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 27C of the Act, if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. 20.4 A copy of this order is given to the applicant and the co-applicant herein and to the jurisdictional Commissioner for their use in the implementation of this order. No one should use this order in any other manner or for any other purpose without the written permission of the Commission.
-
2012 (3) TMI 460
... ...
... ... ..... lty also requires to be reconsidered. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner is confirmed except on these two grounds and his order is set aside in respect of these two grounds. In that view of the matter, a case for interference is made out. 29. Accordingly, we pass the following order. ORDER (i) Appeals are allowed. (ii) Impugned order passed by the CESTAT is set aside and the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs is restored, except on the aforesaid two grounds. (iii) The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner to hear the assessee and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the following two issues (a) Whether the redemption fine levied really represents the market value of the goods i.e., machineries, raw materials as well as the spare parts as on the date of the seizure? (b) In the facts of the case, whether the assessees are personally liable to pay fine? The substantial questions of laws framed are answered accordingly. Ordered accordingly.
-
2012 (3) TMI 452
... ...
... ... ..... ay extend to 10 years and also with fine which may extend to ₹ 1 lac, the petitioner is also not entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 37 (1)(b) of NDPS Act. The provisions contained in this section are made applicable and operative "notwithstanding anything contained in Cr.P.C.". The limitation of granting bail specified in clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations under Cr.PC or any other law for the time being in force for grant of bail. Having regard to the entire factual matrix, it is not possible for this Court to record satisfaction that there are reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences for which he has been charged and that he is not likely to commit any offences while on bail. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted bail in view of provisions of Section 37(i)(b) of NDPS Act also. 16. In view of above discussion, the petition for bail is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 448
... ...
... ... ..... as the authorized representative of the exporter. It is difficult to believe that he undertook this activity on the basis of friendship with the exporter. Further he did not make any efforts to present the real persons behind the transaction before the Customs. Therefore, the charge of abetment by Shri S.K. Maheshwari is also clearly established and he is also liable to penalty under the provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act. 5.3. Considering the fact that these two persons are individuals undertaking this kind of work for small consideration we reduce the penalty on Shri S.K. Maheshwari from ₹ 5 lakhs to ₹ 1.5 lakhs (Rupees One lakh Fifty Thousand only) and on Shri Bhim Sen Singh, proprietor of M/s. Nikhil Shipping Agency from ₹ 1 lakh to ₹ 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only).The order of the lower authorities are upheld but for the above modifications. 6. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Operative Part Pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (3) TMI 424
... ...
... ... ..... transactions in violation of the CHALR provisions stands clearly established and his findings in this regard cannot be faulted. 5.3 The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of OTA Kandla Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that once breach of statutory regulations and misconduct by misusing CHA licence is established, revocation of licence can be done. The ratio of the said judgement squarely applies to the facts of the present case and accordingly we hold that the decision of the adjudicating authority in the impugned case cannot be faulted. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of H.B. Cargo Services (supra) also held that a single act of corruption is sufficient to award maximum penalty of revocation of licence. The ratio of this judgement squarely applies to the present case. 6. Respectfully following the ratio of the above decisions, we uphold the impugned order of the learned adjudicating authority. Consequently, the appeal gets dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 412
Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - appellant-CHA firm was allegedly involved in the case of misuse of IEC by undervaluing the imported goods and thereby violating provisions of CHALR, 2004 - sub-letting the CHA licence to one Shri Manoj Shial for monetary consideration, not having proper authorization from the importer - Section 108 of the CA - Held that: - it is an admitted position that no proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the CA, 1962. Both the statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act have been recorded - there are enough evidence on records that point out that the CHA have not behaved prudently. But for the lapses on the part of the CHA as enumerate in the Inquiry Reports as well as in my observations after weighing defence put forth by the CHA, it is seen that no malafide intent has been proved against the CHA. Considering magnitude of infractions on the part of the CHA, the CHA should be punished adequately - the licence of CHA was made operative with immediate effect - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2012 (3) TMI 408
Clandestine removal - Electricity consumption - The requirement in case of manufacture of ingots by melting of sponge iron ranges between 815 to 1046 KWH. But for the assessee, power consumption for the manufacture of per MT of ingots was ranging between 1159.72 to 2019.37 units in the year 2005-2006 - Revenue was of the view that respondents had not accounted for the entire production that could be manufactured from the electricity consumed by them and cleared the same clandestinely without payment of duty - Held that: - the issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 669 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] which stand confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad as also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court - it was held in the case that It is settled principle of law that the electricity consumption can not be the only factor or basis for determining the duty liability, that too on imaginary basis, especially when Rules 173E mandatorily requires the Commissioner to prescribe/fix norm for electricity consumption first and notify the same to the manufacturers and thereafter ascertain the reasons for deviations, if any, taking also into account the consumption of various inputs, requirements of labour, material, power supply and the conditions for running the plant together with the attendant facts and circumstances.
Appeal rejected - demand set aside - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (3) TMI 407
... ...
... ... ..... 2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, particularly clause 6 thereof. 6. Whether the Tribunal committed substantial error of law in not following its own decision in the case of Sahil Diamonds v. C.C., reported in 2010 (250) E.L.T. 310, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. ORDER ON CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 490, 491, 492, 493, 488 & 489 “Issue notice returnable on 11th April 2012. After hearing the learned advocate for the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we are convinced that the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case to have interim order restraining the respondent authority from taking any adverse action or recovery proceeding for realization of the penalty, which is the subject matter of these Appeals. We, accordingly, pass such order for a period of fortnight from today with liberty to apply for extension on the selfsame application after notice upon the respondent. Direct service permitted.
-
2012 (3) TMI 406
... ...
... ... ..... the administrative side. If the Tribunal enters a finding that the jurisdiction lies with the Special Bench at New Delhi they are free to dismiss the appeal without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Special Bench at Delhi. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions The 5th respondent is directed to accept the originals of Exts. P4 & P5 appeals if re-submitted by the petitioner and place the same before the Tribunal. Thereupon, the Tribunal shall decide the question as to whether the appeals would lie before the South Zonal Bench or before the Special Bench at New Delhi, after hearing both parties. If the Tribunal enters a finding that the jurisdiction vests with the Special Bench, New Delhi, they may dismiss the appeals, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file appeals before the Special Bench. In the meanwhile, bank guarantee, if any, provided by the petitioner shall not be encashed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 400
... ...
... ... ..... clerk has complied with the office objections. Now, he submits that he wants two days time to comply with the same. 3. If this is the way, the matter is prosecuted in the High Court, we are very sorry and any indulgence is shown that would encourage the way of conducting the cases in the High Court, which will not give good name to the profession as well as to the High Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 398
... ...
... ... ..... Circular No. 6/2008, dated 28-4-2008, it is clear that if SAD has been debited to DEPB Scrip and thereafter the assessee has discharged the liability of ST/VAT, the assessee is entitled for refund. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the impugned order and set aside the impugned order. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the issue of bar of unjust enrichment. The matter needs examination at the end of Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass the order on merits after considering the issue of unjust enrichment. It is pertinent to mention here that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant to present their case and to pass the order as per law within 30 days on receipt of this order. The appellant shall cooperate in the proceedings. 7. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated in open Court)
-
2012 (3) TMI 328
Writ petition- petitioner had submitted that the petitioner would deposit 25% of the total amount payable by the petitioner, as duty and penalty, as pre-deposit, for the hearing of the appeal, in Appeal No.49/2011, pending on the file of the second respondent - first respondent had no objection - the first respondent is directed to hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - appeal will stand dismissed on the failure of the respondent to compny with the laid conditions as per the order of the second respondent.
|
