Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Nalin Choksey Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai

Penalty u/s 112 - Misdeclaration of goods - held that:- The provisions of Section 127A to 127N of the Customs Act, 1962 deal with the Settlement of cases. It is clear from Section 127B that an importer may make an application in relation to a case disclosing the full and true duty liability before the proper officer. In the present case, we find that the Additional Commissioner has not challenged the deposit of duty made by Shri Sunil Lulla. Therefore he has treated Shri Sunil Lulla as the impor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orter or the applicant by the Settlement commission, it is not open to Revenue to proceed against other co-noticees. - The provisions of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and the provisions of Settlement are similar and therefore the principle laid down in the case of Onkar S. Kanwar (2002 (9) TMI 101 - SUPREME Court) would apply in the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. C/87015/2013-MUM - Dated:- 16-3-2015 - P. S. Pruthi,J. For the Appellant : Ms Kiran Doiphode For the Responde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mported vehicle. The appellant help in clearance through Customs of a vehicle Toyota Land Cruiser' imported by Shri Toparapu Narsaiah under Transfer of Residence Rules (TR) vide Bill of Entry dt. 22.9.2003, and arranged the sale of the vehicle to Shri Sunil Lulla. Later, it was found by CIU that the impugned vehicle was cleared by mis-declaring the year of manufacture to Customs as 1997 instead of the actual year of manufacture which is November 1999. It was alleged by the department that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

;s order that Shri Sunil Lulla had approached the Settlement Commission who passed the final order No. 92/CUS/HDS/2009 dt. 28.10.2009. It was further recorded in Additional Commissioner's Order that Shri Sunil Lulla had complied with the aforesaid final order and paid the differential duty of Customs amounting to ₹ 7,12,169/- along with interest of ₹ 2,38,430/- redemption fine of ₹ 40,000/- and penalty of ₹ 10,000/-. As per Additional Commissioner's Order no furth .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther co-noticees. But only the appellant Shri Nalin Choksi is in appeal before us. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is only a bona fide broker dealing in imported cars on commission basis and was not aware of the date of manufacture of the said car. Further, he was only involved in giving the vehicle on lease to Mr. Sunil Lulla. There was no physical sale by the importer and the vehicle continued to be registered in the name of the importer M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the same cannot be reopened for co-noticees and the case is to be considered as fully settled in totality. She relied on the Tribunal decisions in the cases of S.K. Colombowala Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2007 (220) E.L.T. 492 (Tri.-Mumbai), Vijay R. Bohra Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Daman 2010 (260) E.L.T. 290 (Tri. - Ahmd.) and Gautam Pukhraj Bafna Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2014 (314) E.L.T. 305 (Tri. - Mumbai). 5. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

co-noticee cannot claim immunity on the basis of declaration made by the main noticee. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. The provisions of Section 127A to 127N of the Customs Act, 1962 deal with the Settlement of cases. It is clear from Section 127B that an importer may make an application in relation to a case disclosing the full and true duty liability before the proper officer. In the present case, we find that the Additional Commissioner has not challenged the d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

all lead to a reasonable conclusion that once a case has been decided in respect of the importer or the applicant by the Settlement commission, it is not open to Revenue to proceed against other co-noticees. I agree with the reliance placed on the judgments of the Tribunal cited by the Ld. Counsel. It has been held in a cantena of judgments including Majority opinion in the case of S.R. Colombowala (supra) that once the case of main notice is settled, proceedings against other co-noticees will .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ets a case settled under K.V.S.S., it will provide immunity to all the co-noticees, provided the issues raised in the show cause notice/adjudication order pertain to the same matter. The word "co-noticee" will have to be understood in the sense of co-obligant, though it is loosely used in the trade notices as co-noticees. The concept of co-noticee contemplates an indivisible act of principal notice giving rise to the liability on other notices. In other words, if the liability of other .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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