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

2015 (2) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er Bansal the appellant also approached to the Settlement Commission but the Settlement Commission passed the following order for the reasons given above the Bench in exercise of Commissions powers under Section 127-I of the Act sends the case with regard to the applicant Shri Virender Bansal back to the proper officer who shall dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if no application under Section 127B of the Act had been made by the said applicant. As the observation of the Settlement Commission is that Shri Bansal had no way approached the Settlement Commission. Therefore the case of Shri Bansal is equated with the other appellants before us. If the case has been settled before the Settlement Commission, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... turing but the imported goods were diverted into local market after importation. DRI booked a case and matter was investigated, it was found that all these goods were purchased by Shri Vinod Kumar Garg and the imports made through Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal in the name of M/s Dollar Poly Pipes (India) Ltd. and M/s Shivalik Plastichem (India) Ltd. After investigation, it is revealed that the appellants were involved in the illegal imports of the goods which were diverted into domestic market without payment of duty. Therefore demand of duty against M/s Dollar Poly Pipes and M/s Shivalik Plastichem (I) Ltd. were proposed to be demanded along with interest and penalties were also proposed to be imposed. Before adjudication took place Shri Vinod .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... KD is not imposable as held by the Tribunal in the case of S.K. Colombowala Vs. CC (Import), Mumbai 2007 (220) ELT 492 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. For imports made from Mumbai port, it is the contention of the ld. Counsels that appellants before us were not the party to the Show Cause Notice. Therefore penalties on the appellants are not imposable. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order qua imposing penalty on all the appellants be set aside. 5. On the other hand, ld. Commissioner (AR) oppose the contention of the ld. Counsels and submits that it is a case of fraud played by Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal and Shri Vinod Kumar Garg and appellants were actively involved in the case of diversion of goods imported duty free in domest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n under Section 127B of the Act had been made by the said applicant. As the observation of the Settlement Commission is that Shri Bansal had no way approached the Settlement Commission. Therefore the case of Shri Bansal is equated with the other appellants before us. 8. We find that in this case S.K. Colombowala (supra) this Tribunal has held that if the case has been settled before the Settlement Commission, the proceedings against all the co noticees come to an end. Therefore, it was held that penalties not imposable under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In these circumstances, following the decision of S.K. Colombowala (supra) we hold that for the imports made through ICD, TKD the penalties on the appellants are not imposable. 9. W .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... should not be demanded and recovered from them under the proviso to Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs exemption Notification No. 43/2002-Cus dated 19.4.2002 due to the reason as discussed in para 56 to 58 above. (c) Interest should not be recovered from the importer under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs exemption Notification No. 43/2002-Cus dated 19.4.2002 due to the reason as discussed in para 56 to 58 above. (d) Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112(a) (b) and/or under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 for above mentioned acts of omission and commission which have rendered the subject goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 due to the r .....

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