Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (4) TMI 781

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aid down thereunder - there is no evidence of any direct involvement of the respondent as regards forgery of the licences, even otherwise the provisions of Section 111 and 112 of the Act would not be attracted so as to vest the Customs Authorities with the power to take action against the present respondent in connection with his alleged involvement in the purchase of the DEPB licences - Appeal is dismissed - 1753 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2010 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.M. Chhaya, SSC, for the Appellant. Shri Sudhir M. Mehta and Ms. Shailee S. Mehta, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : H.N. Devani, J. (Oral)]. In both these appeals appellant-revenue has challenged common order dated 26- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2001 and 8-3-2001 respectively, allegedly issued by Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), New Delhi were forged. The said position was confirmed by letter dated 20-7-2001 of the DGFT. M/s. Abhiman Export had sold the forged DEPB licences in the market which were purchased by one M/s. Rajshanti Metals Ltd. M/s. Rajshanti Metals filed various Bills of Entry claiming exemption from customs duties vide Customs Notification No. 34/97 dated 7-4-1997. On the basis of the above referred DEPB licences the goods were cleared by granting exemption. During the course of investigation, the statement of the Chief Executive of M/s. Rajshanti Metals Ltd., was recorded wherein it was stated that DEPB licences and related release advance had been c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s not justified in upholding the order of Commissioner (Appeals). It is also submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in the case CC, Mumbai v. M.D. Corporation, 2001 (127) E.L.T. 270 (Tri. -Mum.) on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal has been challenged by the revenue and has not attained finality and as such the Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the said decision. 5. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, while it is true that the Tribunal has observed that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC, Mumbai v. M.D. Corporation (supra), was fully applicable to the facts of the case, the Tribunal has also found that the original adjudicating authority while imposing penalty upon respondent, has not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the respondent has been held liable for committing acts which rendered the imported goods liable for confiscation under, Section 111(o) and consequently, has been held liable for penal action under Section 112(a) of the Act. It may therefore, be germane to refer to the said provisions. 8. Section 111 of the Act, which provides for Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. lays down the modes of importing goods brought from a place outside India which would render the goods liable to confiscation. In view of the provisions of Clause (o) thereof, any goods exempted, subject to any condition, from duty or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under the Act or any other, law for the time being in force, in respect of which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is Act or in the case of baggage, in the de claration made under Section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the de clared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty not exceed ing the value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest; (v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty not exceed ing the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or the difference between the decl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates