Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1018 - CESTAT MUMBAIDemand of duty from the Supplier of the foreign company - Whether in the present case, the supplier can be construed as importer or not? - demand u/s 28 of CA - penalty u/s 114A - Held that:- The appellant is not the importer as firstly, he has not imported the car. Secondly, he has not filed any Bill of Entry. The Bill of Entry was filed by Shri Cyril Anand Fernandez. In this fact, the demand under Section 28 cannot be confirmed against the appellant irrespective of whatever role he has played in the import of the car. It is also a fact on record that the goods have been released to Shri Murli Manohar Pandey who was the owner of the car at the relevant time, on payment of customs duty and redemption fine - the demand cannot be made from the appellant when admittedly the demand was recovered from Shri Murli Manohar Pandey - demand do not sustain. Penalty u/s 114A - Held that:- Since the duty itself is not sustainable under Section 28 upon the appellant, the penalty under Section 114A which is consequent to the confirmation of demand under Section 28, shall not sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|