Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlightsnew
Home Case Index All Cases Customs Commission Customs + Commission This
← Previous Next →
  • Contents


User Login
Stay sign in     

Forget password        New User/ Regiser


2016 (2) TMI 1141

Evasion of ADD - import of 14 and 21 Coloured Picture Tube - overvaluation of the imported goods - application to Settlement Commission - Held that: - From the scrutiny of the SCN, the settlement application and the replies to the notice of proceeding it was noticed that present dispute involves various inter-linked companies, in which M/s. Videocon India Ltd. was the main company. As M/s. Videocon India Ltd., they have not come for settlement; the issue that was required to be examined was the maintainability of the settlement applications of other applicants before the Commission, in absence of M/s. Videocon India Ltd. In view of the same it was decided as to whether the applications may be allowed to be proceeded with or not.

The Bench has carefully gone through the record and submissions made by both the sides. The Bench observes that M/s. Applicomp India Ltd. (Applicant No. 1) has pleaded that a sum of ₹ 5 crores deposited by M/s. VIL may be treated as payment towards their duty liability because the VIL has deposited this sum on their behalf. The Revenue has contested this fact and stated that the deposit made by M/s. VIL was towards the duty liability of M/s. VIL only. In this same SCN, a duty of ₹ 127.30 crores has been demanded from M/s. VIL. M/s. VIL and M/s. Applicomp India Ltd. are two separate legal entities and therefore, the liability of M/s. Applicomp cannot be adjusted against the payment made by M/s. VIL. Thus, M/s. Applicomp India Ltd. has not fulfilled the condition (c) of the First proviso to Section 127(B)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and is liable to be rejected on this ground alone - The Bench has also observed that the applicant is not interested in settling of their case and is asking adjournments on one ground or other. It appears that the applicants are adopting this tactic to delay the proceedings before the Commission. The Commission is statutorily bound by the time limit laid down by the statute to settle the cases and cannot indefinitely postpone the matter without any solid and cogent reasons. The whole tactic adopted by the applicant is to simply delay the proceedings and to gain time and for that they give different excuses at different time. The applicant has not co-operated with the Commission in disposing of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act.

The Bench, by virtue of the power vested in it in terms of Section 127-I(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, sends the case back to the respective adjudicating authorities for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of law. The adjudicating authorities will decide the case as if no application for settlement has been filed by the applicants in this regard - matter remanded.


← Previous Next →




Discussion Forum
what is new what is new

Let's just recapitulate:

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.