9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 354-NA, dated 2-3-1988. Duty on the value of the car, as seen from the invoice, was paid. Appellant used the vehicle for some time during which it met with accident. Subsequently, she sold it to her brother-in-law and he is possessing the vehicle. 2. Customs authorities came to know that vehicles manufactured by Volks Wagen are being imported into India without paying proper Customs Duty. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence went into that question. On the basis of the information gathered, proceedings were initiated against the importers. Since the appellant got one Audi 80 imported, she was also a recipient of Show Cause Notice dated 19-2-1991. She was called upon to show why the car should not be confiscated under Section 111(m), 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsp;- Proved 2. Mis-declaration of - Proved CC of the car 3. Trading of CCP - Not Proved 4. Evasion of duty - Proved It was on these findings he imposed liability on the importer as stated earlier. Dissatisfied with the above conclusion reached by the adjudicating authority - the Collector, the Revenue has come up in appeal in Appeal No. C/153/94-A. The prayer therein is "whether by an order passed under Section 129B of the Act, the Tribunal should modify the order read with show cause notice by enhancing the value of the cars as per tourist price list, order confiscation of the goods and impose appropriate penalty on all concerned parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officers that air conditioner costs 1859 D.M. The vehicle imported by Mrs. Singhal had no air conditioner fixed to it, so the value of the vehicle imported by her as per the information given by the manufacturer would come to 13,000 D.M. (approx.). That is the price shown in the invoice issued in her name. 6. On the basis of the evidences before the Collector, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that by carrying out some minor changes in the engine its capacity can be varied. Misdeclaration regarding CC was alleged in the case of cars with engine capacity of 1595 CC. Relevant finding on this aspect is in the following terms:- "... After June, 1989 it is claimed that M/s. VW found that market for 1595 CC vehicles in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... city other than 1595 CC. Department miserably failed in proving that the vehicle imported by Mrs. Singhal was one having engine capacity of more than 1600 CC. In the absence of such evidence, we are clear in our mind that the action initiated against her was clearly misguided. 7. As stated earlier, the vehicle was cleared on payment of Customs Duty on 20-4-1988. Show Cause Notice issued on 19-2-1991 was clearly barred by limitation. This is so when it is seen that there was no mis-declaration or suppression even according to Collector's own finding. So there was no possibility of the Revenue invoking the extended period. If there is no misdeclaration, as alleged by the department, there could not have been any claim for differential d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
