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

2015 (4) TMI 310 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (4) TMI 310 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se 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. - 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 Appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

la who was interested in purchase of an imported 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

corded in the Additional Commissioner'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 Add .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

posed by the Additional Commissioner on other 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is settled in the Settlement Commission, 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 reiter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

two independent causes of action then the 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 Additio .....

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 under Section 127C shall be conclusive- 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, pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

other words, where the principal notice gets 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. .....

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