9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner was the owner of the goods carrier bearing registration No.TN-04 T 6725 of ACE Model, manufactured by Tata Motors. According to the petitioner, based on a paper publication dated 20.8.2009, she approached the second respondent, who is a dealer of secondhand vehicles, for the sale of the above vehicle. On 14.9.2009, the second respondent issued a sale receipt for the purchase of the above stated vehicle and the delivery note dated 15.9.2009 shows that the vehicle was delivered on 14.9.2009 at 11.30 AM. 2.2. While the matter stood thus, it appears that on 20.8.2010, at about 4.30 PM, the Commercial Tax Officer, on routine inspection, came to accost the vehicle and found that it was carrying huge quantity of foreign liquor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. b) penalty should not be imposed on Smt. T. Smitha, owner of the vehicle bearing regn.No.TN 04T 6725 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. c) penalty should not be imposed on Shri Udaya Kumar Singh, who transported the foreign Wine through vehicle bearing regn. No.TN 04 T 6725 on 20.8.2010 and the same was intercepted by the Commercial Taxes Dept., Chennai under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 27. Smt. T.Smitha is hereby required to note that her reply be accompanied by all the evidences, documentary or otherwise on which she may rely and that if no reply is received within the stipulated time, it will be presumed that she has no explanation to offer and the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... third respondent is represented by Mr. A.R. Jaya Prathap, learned Government Advocate (Tax). A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. No counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent, however the learned counsel submits on the basis of records and documents. 4. Mr. K. Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended as follows: i. that the Customs Department has no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice and initiate action against the petitioner; ii. that assuming, without admitting, they have jurisdiction to issue the notice, the notice is bad on account of delay and laches; iii. that in the preliminary enquiry made by the Customs Department, the petitioner has submitted all relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d respondent states that admittedly the goods were seized on the premise that it did not carry proper documents and the goods detention notice was issued. The Commercial Tax Department tried to hand over the goods to the Prohibition and Enforcement Wing of the Police Department, which department declined on the ground that the goods are imported liquor and, therefore, they will have no jurisdiction to deal with it. Thereafter intimation was given to the Customs Department, which seized the goods under mahazar dated 28.6.2011 and, therefore, the Commercial Tax Department has no role to play, as they have already handed over the entire goods to the Customs Department to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. He further submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the show cause notice was issued on 23.12.2011, to wit within six months. In any event, Section 110 of the Customs Act, which has been referred to by the petitioner, has nothing to do with the show cause notice, as it relates to detention of the goods beyond the period specified. Thus, that provision does not render the show cause notice bad. The second plea taken by the petitioner is therefore unsustainable in law. 10. The third plea taken by the petitioner is that materials given at the time of enquiry have not been considered in the show cause notice and the action should have been dropped. At the stage of show cause notice, the authority gathers the materials and issues notice for proceeding under the Customs Act. It is at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuing the impugned notice, wrongly stated as impugned order, the second respondent or his executive should have enquired and without doing so, the show cause notice has been issued. In ground (H), the plea taken is that the first respondent failed to consider the material documents like sale receipt and delivery note before issuing show cause notice. 14. The above plea is factual in nature and the same can be urged before the adjudicating authority to sustain the case that no penalty is leviable. This Court is not inclined to go into the factual aspects of the case at the stage of show cause notice to hold that the show cause notice is illegal or without jurisdiction. 15. Admittedly, the goods in question are foreign liqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
