GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (4) TMI 235 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (4) TMI 235 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2015 (321) E.L.T. 33 (Mad.) - Misdeclaration of goods - goods declared as Hot mix plant Batch type - On examination it was found that goods were only components of complete hot mix plant and not a complete hot mix plant - denial of exemption from duty in terms of Notification No.17/2001-Cus. - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- On examination of the imported goods, import documents and the correspondences between the respondent/importer, the supplier and t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d their evidence is also very clear stating that they had imported only parts of hot mix plant and not entire plant, the above-said decision in the case of IVRCL (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. Further, the correspondences between the respondent/importer, the supplier and the local representative clearly show that the importer was aware that the goods were only components and not entire plant. - Following decision of Commissioner of Customs (AIR), Chennai V. A.P.Pinherio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er to reduce the fine and waive the penalty in toto when both are mandatory under statute and more so when the Supreme Court has held in the negative against such exercise of power by the Tribunal as held in 2008(231) E.L.T.(SC) and 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC)? 2. Whether the order of CESTAT, waiving the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962 for commission of an offence which rendered the goods for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act 1962, is correct when CESTAT has u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the goods declared as Hot mix plant Batch type with electronic controls and bag type filter arrangement 160TPH . On examination of the imported goods, the Commissioner of Customs held that the goods imported by the respondent under Bill of Entry dated 29.1.2002, namely, screen drum, electrical cabinets, geared motors and conveyor belts, bearings etc. were only components of complete hot mix plant and not a complete hot mix plant and fixed the value of the imported goods at DM 5.50 lakhs CIF; .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssioner of Customs reported in 2004 (166) ELT 447 held that in an identical situation, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the importers and upheld the denial of exemption under Notification, but reduced the fine and set aside the penalty. Accordingly, in the present case, the Tribunal reduced the fine from ₹ 5.00 lakhs to ₹ 1.00 lakh and set aside the penalty. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court contending that on confiscation, penalty shal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

elation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping,concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable, - (i) in the ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared 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 exceeding the value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the val .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2004 (166) ELT 447, we find that penalty has been set aside only on the ground that no adequate evidence was found, which render the goods liable for confiscation. Since there was no proper finding, the penalty was set aside. 9. In the present case, on examination of the imported goods, import documents and the correspondences between the respondent/importer, the supplier and the local representative, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t mix plant and not entire plant, the above-said decision in the case of IVRCL (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. Further, the correspondences between the respondent/importer, the supplier and the local representative clearly show that the importer was aware that the goods were only components and not entire plant. 11. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (AIR), Chennai V. A.P.Pinherio reported in 2014 (306) E.L.T. 349 (Mad) 2014 306 E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version