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

2015 (8) TMI 1171 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (8) TMI 1171 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2017 (345) E.L.T. 95 (Mad.) - Attempt to export goods improperly Imposition of Penalty Respondent was alleged to have filed shipping documents to export red sanders, which was prohibited, under guise of natural slate stone Tribunal vide impugned order set aside order of Adjudicating Authority imposing penalty Whether Tribunal was justified in setting aside penalty imposed under Section 114 of Customs Act Held that:- seen from order of Tribunal 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

ded in favour of Assesse. - Civil Misc Appeal No. 2429 of 2009 - Dated:- 2-7-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K B K Vasuki, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. K Mohanamurali For the Respondents : Mr. T V Suresh Kumar - R1 JUDGMENT (Delivered by R. Sudhakar,J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal dated 12.09.2008 made in Final Order No.995 of 2008 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai was admitted by this Court on the following substanti .....

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. [2009 (239) ELT 385] and Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors [(2008) 306 ITR 277] " 2. The question of law admitted by this Court has been wrongly framed, as if the penalty should be mandatory in view of the decision in the case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills [2009 (238) ELT 3], Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. S.K.F. India Ltd. [2009 (239) ELT 385] and Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors [(2008) 306 ITR 277] . It is not a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o why the goods should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed. In response to the said notice, the first respondent had filed a reply stating that he had signed the shipping bill for export of natural slate stone and he had not handled the export clearance of the subject goods. He further stated that he did not know the actual exporter. The Adjudicating Authority, after due process of law, adjudicated the matter and passed an order confirming the penalty of ₹ 25 ,000 /- impos .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ization from the exporter as required under Regulation 13A of the CHALR, 2004 and that he signed the Annexure to the Shipping Bills and handed over to one Rajan who handled the consignment. The consignments declared as natural slate stones was found to be red sanders and seized and proceeded against as per the Customs Act. The original authority imposed a penalty of ₹ 25 ,000 /- on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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