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

1995 (5) TMI 263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entry for the consignment was presented by the appellant on 19th March, 1989. The benefit of Notification 267/89-Cus., dated 1-11-1989 was claimed. This Notification extends concessional rate of duty to stamping foils less than 6 width. After the bill of entry was presented, various queries were raised as to the width of the foils. The appellant furnished a reply. The examination of stamping foils showed that except for one packing, the rest exceeded 6 width. A show cause notice was issued alleging evasion of duty by the appellant by mis-declaring width of the stamping foils and proposing confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The Collector, after considering the reply, as also the submissions at the personal hearing confirm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tions in its appeal involves the rate of duty, and therefore, this Bench had the jurisdiction. 3. Shri Sharad Bhansali, learned SDR opposing this stand argued that request for mutilation did not cite in provisions of Section 24 of the Act. 4. It is not in dispute that the appellant had before the Collector had passed this order made a request for clearance of goods after mutilation at the concessional rate. The Collector in his order has not conceded the request. This is one of the issues being agitated before us. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this is the appropriate Bench for deciding the issue; we note that the same conclusion had also been arrived at earlier. On this decision being conveyed to counsel Shri Asthana .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ls and clear them at the lower rate of duty. Case law was also cited by Shri Asthana. 6. Shri Sharad Bhansil, learned SDR argued that there was no evidence to show that any letter had been filed by the appellant on 30th March, 1990 for mutilation. He further, pointed out that the appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification 267/89 on a bill of entry, thus in effect saying that the width of the foils was 6 or less. This amounted to misdeclaration. He argued that the question of mutilation of goods would arise if the goods were capable of being used for more than one purposes. This condition had not been satisfied and the provisions of Section 24 would not apply. 7. We have considered the submissions of both parties. We have also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xamination of goods is requested. Along with the request if any of the foils exceeds 6 , the foil may be cut to size in order to avail the benefit of notification . The Collector in his Order had considered this aspect. He dismissed the request for mutilation only on the ground that it was made after investigation commenced. 9. Neither the invoice nor the bill of entry has stated that the stamping foils are below 6 width. The Department s claim for misdeclaration is solety based on the fact that the benefit of notification was claimed. A claim for the benefit of a notification by itself would not amount to misdeclaration. Sub-section (m) of Section 111 renders liable to confiscation any goods which do not correspond in respect of valu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submissions made on behalf of the Collector that `in addition to the admitted duty, the redemption fine itself amounted to ₹ 30 lakhs besides penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs . From the comments filed on behalf of the Collector before this Tribunal in the Deputy Collector s letter dated 8-7-1992, it is clear that the goods have been cleared on payment of concessional rate of duty after mutilation. It is not clear whether the Department had proceeded further, or the judgment of the High Court has achieved the finality. Whatever the position, the mutilation and clearance at the concessional rate of duty had been ordered by the Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for u .....

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