|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 185 Records
-
2017 (10) TMI 1325 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty u/s 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - The only ground taken by the appellant before the first appellate authority is that since on an identical issue in penalty against on him is contested and is in appeal before the first appellate authority - Held that:- The first appellate authority in the impugned order has come to a conclusion as to how he has appreciated the evidences, which are on records and also the grounds of appeal of the appellant before him. It can be seen from the said findings which are in Paragraph number 6 and 7, reasoning indicate matter was gone into the details to the evidence on record and the role attributable to appellant herein - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1315 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Reversal of MODVAT credit - Fulfillment of Export Obligation - Whether in facts of the case since there is a reversal of Modvat credit, there is no violation of Condition No. VI of N/N. 204/92? - Whether in the facts of the case that as per the Licensing Authority (DGFT) has fulfilled the Export obligation and therefore, there is no violation of Condition No. VII of N/N. 204/92?
Held that:- The aforesaid two questions require clear fact finding and draw conclusion on that basis - Therefore learned Commissioner is requested to issue notice to appellant for production of evidence before him on the date he shall fix to examine the above two issues and outcome of examination reported by 18.12.2017 to Tribunal for conclusion of appeals.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - case of petitioner is that the transaction having been done through approved banking channel, there can be no allegation made against the petitioner in the discharge of his duties as a Customs Broker - Held that: - The respondent has pointed out as to when the amount has been reimbursed by the client to the petitioner and noted that it was done much after customs duty was remitted by the petitioner - these factual aspects cannot be gone into in a writ petition, as the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy under the provisions of the Customs Act, by approaching the appellate authority - petition not maintainable.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1282 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Refund of excess duty paid - denial on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that: - the rejection of chartered accountant certificate by the lower authorities seems to be erroneous as chartered accountant has clearly stated that the amount of 1,34,894/- has been shown as receivable in the year 2015-2016 due to finalization and that the said amount has not been recovered by the appellant from any person - refund allowed in cash - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1281 - SC ORDER
In view of the findings recorded by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the O.M. dated 05.06.2013 of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, we find no ground to interfere - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1280 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Imposition of ADD - low ash (below 12.5%) - low phosphorus less than 0.018% - Held that: - this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has the right to approach the CESTAT Bench (C-2), which is the designated Appellate Tribunal. In case they prefer an appeal under Section 9C within two weeks from today, the same shall be entertained and heard on its merits in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1272 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Misdeclaration of export goods - contraband item - red sanders wood - penalty - Held that: - in the instant case one container was loaded with glass tumblers in the factory of BG. The container was stuffed under the supervision of Central Excise officers and also sealed. The container after export was recalled by the DRI and examined and it was found to contain 9.34 mt of red sander wood which is prohibited for export. Along with the contraband a part of the declared goods i.e. glass tumblers was also found - it is evident that none of the appellants had any role to play in the fraudulent export of red sander wood - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1271 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Classification of imported goods - parts/components/ accessories of various tools/dies - classified under chapter 82 or 84? - Appellant strongly argued that such summary classification of the goods imported under 13 bills of entry cannot be done - It has been claimed by the appellant that none of the goods imported are in the nature of parts of dies - Held that: - a significant portion of the imported goods are meant for captive consumption and not intended for manufacture of tools/ dies for M/s Honda. Goods falling in this category include items such as complete sets of dies checking fixtures, inspection jigs and various other such items. Such items are definitely required to be classified individually taking note of the nature of the goods imported and its individual classification.
In respect of goods which have been imported for use in the design and manufacture of tools/ dies to be supplied to M/s Honda, we are of the view that these are required to be assessed as presented at the time of import. If such goods are identifiable as classifiable under any of the headings/ sub-headings of Customs Tariff Heading, they are to be classified therein. Only those goods which are specifically identifiable as parts of base metals which are not specifically covered separately under any of headings/ sub-headings, will be classified under 8207.
The matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for passing de novo order - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1270 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Determination of duty after the death of importer - at the time of assessment and determination of duty liability through the impugned order, the alleged importer Shri Gurmeet Singh Sehgal is not alive - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Shabina Abraham And Others Versus Collector of Central Excise & Customs [2015 (7) TMI 1036 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that there is in fact no separate machinery provided by the Central Excises and Salt Act to proceed against a dead person when it comes to assessing him to tax under the Act.
The present appellants were nowhere in the picture in the proceedings before the adjudicating authority - it is not the case of Revenue recovery proceedings on confirmed duty liability during the life time of an importer. It is a case where the duty liability itself was determined after the death of the proprietor–importer - such demand of duty cannot be confirmed against the deceased person. Consequently, there can be no question of liability on the purported legal heir either for duty or redemption fine.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1269 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Liability of interest - Simultaneous benefit of two schemes - Status Holder Incentive Scrips (SHIS) - Zero Duty Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) - surrender of benefit under SHIS, on pointing out but without any interest - Public Notice dated 08th September, 2016 - Held that: - the said Circular is clarificatory in nature, so it is applicable retrospectively - it appears that the Annexure to the Public Notice dated 08th September, 2016 has not been followed strictly in the instant case. The interest has also not been computed. When it is so, then we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue de novo - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1268 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - case of appellant is that the delay caused in filing the present appeal is not deliberate and intentional but on account of the various reasons stated in the application - Held that: - though the reasons stated in the COD application for filing the appeal belatedly are not very convincing, but in the interest of justice, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹ 20,000/- - application allowed.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1267 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Revocation of CB license - penalty - Regulation 11(a) - Held that: - Both the partners of M/s. Unisys Enterprises have disclosed in their statements to DRI that they were not aware of the details of the imports and had never met Shri Sameer Jha, proprietor of CB. From this, it emerges that the appellant has failed to obtain the authorization from the actual importer and violation of regulation 11(a) stands established.
Imposition of Regulation 11(d) - Held that: - it stands established that the appellant has not even met the actual importer and as such requesting of advising the client for compliance of various legal positions does not arise. In view of the above failure to observe regulation 11(d) stands established.
Imposition of Regulation 11(e) - Held that: - Regulation 11(e) requires due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information which he imparts to client - In the facts of the present case, both the partners of M/s. Unisys Enterprise, have admitted that they were unaware of the actual imports made in their name. Further, the appellant also has admitted that they never met the owner of the firm. From this it appears that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of information which he imparted to the client with reference to work related to clearance of cargo.
Imposition of Regulation 11(n) - Held that: - Regulation 11(n) requires the CB to verify the antecedents, correctness of IEC code no., identity of the client and its functioning at the declared address - In the present case, we find that the appellant has simply accepted the address appearing in the driving license of Shri Sachin Gulati, partner of M/s. Unisys Enterprise. The appellant failed to notice that the address in the IEC document is different. Had the appellant made any serious verification, he would have known that the IEC of the firm was being used by a third person, Shri Aman Vachhar - violation of Regulation 11(n) stands established for failure to verify antecedents, correctness of IEC details.
The appellant is guilty of violations of CBLR 2013 - ends of justice will be met by imposing a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the appellant, in addition to the forfeiture of the whole amount of security deposit - appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1266 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Penalty u/s 112 and 114AA of the CA, 1962 - the only allegation against the appellant is that he gave authorization for Pass to Shri Biplav Kumar who is their employee and ‘H’ Card holder - Held that: - The Bill of entry for the present consignment was falsely filed in the name of the appellant, by others on 16.11.2010. Even if, it is held that the act of the appellant in issuing a letter dated 20.10.2010 is an infringement, it is not tenable to hold that such act made the goods imported on 16.11.2010 liable for confiscation. There is no link between these two acts. Further, the appellant is not liable for penalty under Section 114 AA as the said penalty relates to act of a person knowingly signing any declaration or documents, which he knows, as false or incorrect in the transaction of any business under the Customs Act.
There was apparently linkage between the attempted smuggling of the particular consignment with the CHA and employee. In the present case, the impugned consignment cannot be linked to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1265 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Exemption form SAD - N/N. 30/2004-CE - demand on the ground that the importers have not been able to satisfy the condition of non-availment of credit by the manufacturer, in terms of the said notification - Held that: - The issue having been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s SRF Ltd., M/s ITC Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, Commissioner of Customs (Import And General) , New Delhi [2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that only those conditions could be satisfied which were possible of satisfaction and the condition which was not possible of satisfaction had to be treated as not satisfied - the judicial discipline requires the same to be followed - It is not the Revenue’s case that any stay has been granted against the said order or their review petition has been allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1264 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Penalty u/s 112(b) of the CA - High Seas Sale - penalty on transporters - Held that: - there is no evidence on record to show that the transporters were aware of the fraud if any, committed by importers - The transporters cannot be expected to know as to what fraud is going to be committed subsequently by the said recipient of the goods. As such, the imposition of penalties upon them, on the ground that they had transported the tainted goods, cannot be justified.
Penalty on CHA - Held that: - there are no evidence to show that they aided and abetted the fraud - the filing of bills of entries by M/s. Canon Industries Pvt. Limited under Target Plus scheme by the present CHA is in accordance with law and the fraud stands committed only after the clearance of the goods - penalty on CHA set aside.
Penalty on purchaser - Held that: - Any purchaser in the ordinary course of business, cannot be held liable to penal action on the ground that the goods involved were tainted and cleared by the original importer with a malafide intention - penalty set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of penalty.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1236 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Classification of imported goods - Whether difference in percentage of the classification between the appellant as well as the Department should be considered as a reason for alleging misdeclaration? - Held that: - the difference in percentage of the classification between the appellant as well as the Department should not be considered as a reason for alleging misdeclaration - reliance placed in the case of M/s. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. Versus CC (AIR) , Chennai [2011 (2) TMI 818 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that finalization of the tariff heading under which the goods should fall is the ultimate job of the customs authorities and if the appellants have claimed wrong classification according to their limited understanding of the customs law, mens rea cannot be attributed to them nor confiscation and imposition of penalty can be resorted to.
The appellant will be liable to pay differential duty as computed by the lower authorities - the order of confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty are set aside - appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1204 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 112(a) of the CA, 1962 - DEPB Scrips obtained fraudulently - Held that: - if circumstances establish that there is high degree of probability that a prudent man ought to act on the supposition that there was design to obtain DEPB scrips without any export and such scrips sold for duty free import in contravention of the law or abetting to achieve such ill object, such act against public Revenue calls for penal consequence to curb such mischief.
The term fraud within the meaning of these penal provisions is wide enough to take into its fold any one or series of acts committed. Such act or acts when demonstrate to be reasonably proximate to the clearance of imports duty free on the basis of the DEPB scrips fraudulently obtained against false documents filed before DGFT, a trader of such scrips has to face adverse consequence of law - appellant fails to succeed in his appeal having acted malafide causing detriment to the interest of public revenue. Ill will of appellants came to record. Pre-ponderance of probability is in favour of Revenue and lends credence to its case.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1203 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Interest on delayed refund - Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - the appellant/applicant herein are entitled to interest, on the amount deposited, under the provisions of Section 129E, read with 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962 @ 6% per annum, is hereby allowed, for the period from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of grant of refund - application disposed off.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1202 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-CUS dtd 14.9.2007 - imported goods sold in Coil or sheet form - denial on the ground that appellant had sold the goods which are different from the goods imported - cash refund - Held that: - we could not find detailed bifurcation of the sales against ‘works contract’ and as such sale of coils or sheets, submitted earlier before lower authorities along with evidence, in support of their claim, now advanced before this forum. Therefore, to ascertain the clearance of imported coils or sheets as such against invoices, the matter needs to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. It is made clear that the appellant would not be entitled to refund of the 4% SAD paid, when such supplies were against works contract for installation of the roofing material made out of imported goods in the premises of the customers/buyers.
In the event the amount of SAD was paid by using DEPB scrip at the time of its import, refund could be allowed in cash.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (10) TMI 1201 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Principles of Natural Justice - even though the second test report dated 03.01.2007 was against the appellant, however, a copy of the same was neither handed over to them nor given a chance to make their submission on the said test report, and the assessment order was passed by the adjudicating authority relying the said test report - Held that: - the second test report dated 03.01.2007 has been relied upon by the adjudicating authority in denying the benefit of the Notification observing that the ash content of the imported coal is more than 12%. Even though the said test report is in agreement with the earlier test report, however, the appellant ought to have been given a chance to advance their case on the said test report before the assessment was finalized by the adjudicating authority relying the said report.
The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.
........
|
