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 →

V. Solomon Jayapandian, Prop. of Maragatham Graphics, D Rockland Durairaj Prop. of Nancy Graphics, P. Thangaraj Prop. of Thangaraj Printing Works, D. Jayaprakash Prop. of Seven Star Offset Printers, D. Joseph Prop. of DJR Arts, D. Diraviyam Prop. of Excellent Process, D. Karunakaran Prop. of Ester Offset Printers, T. Jebaraj Prop. of Kamalam Enterprises, K. Selvaraj Prop. Manoranjitham Printers, D. Manuel Prop. Manual Printers Versus CC Tuticorin

2015 (9) TMI 972 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Improper importation of goods – Confiscation of goods and Imposition of penalties – Appellants made import of second hand printing machinery under fictitious names as actual user and same were sold in violation of EXIM Policy in open market – Imported goods were confiscated and personal penalties were imposed under under Section 112(a) of Customs Act for contravention of FTP Policy and Customs Act – Held that:- Commissioner in first imposed penalty on individual persons – Adjudicating authority .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, appellants are liable for penalty however penalties imposed on respective importer-appellants are reduced – Impugned order modified – Appeals partly allowed – Decided partly in favour of Appellants. - C/151/2005 to 160/2005 - Final Order No. 41090-41099/2015 - Dated:- 1-9-2015 - Hon ble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member And Honble Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member ,JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) ORDER Per R. Periasami All the 10 appeals are taken up together for disp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

EXIM Policy in the open market. The Commissioner of Customs in his first OIO No.55/2000 dt. 25.8.2000 adjudicated the case, confiscated 74 numbers of machines and held that 354 no. of printing machines imported were liable for confiscation however, since the machines were not physically available, he imposed penalty on Shri D. Joseph, Prop.DJR Arts and also imposed penalties on the co-noticees. On appeal by the appellant, this Tribunal vide Final Order No.2039 to 2057/2001 dt. 21.12.2001 remande .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Manuel Printers, Chennai 2,00,000/- 5. M/s.Maragatham Graphics, Chennai 3,00,000/- 6. M/s.Seven Star Offset Printers, Sivakasi 3,00,000/- 7. M/s.Thangaraj Printing Works, Sivakasi 2,50,000/- 8. M/s.Manoranjitham Printers, Sivakasi 1,75,000/ 9. M/s.Excellant Process, Chennai 1,75,000/- 10. M/s.Nancy Graphics, Chennai 3,50,000/- 11. M/s.Angel Micro System, Chennai 2,50,000/- Out of these 11 importers, only 10 have filed appeals before Tribunal barring M/s.Angel Micro System, Chennai (Sl.No.11). 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

lat filed. Considering the appeals relate to the year 2005 and the appellants failed to respond to the several hearings fixed, we proceed to decide all the appeals ex-parte on merits based on the documents available on record. 4. Heard Ld. A.R for Revenue who reiterated the findings of the adjudication order. She submits that penalty has been rightly imposed on the appellants and the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of 74 printing machines whereas in the de novo order as per the direc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Tri.-Chennai). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR and also perused the grounds of appeals. These appeals filed for waiver of penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. We have also perused the Tribunal's order dt. 21.12.2001 wherein specific direction was given to the Commissioner while remanding the case. The adjudicating authority has confiscated entire 370 second hand printing machinery and imposed penalties on 10 co-noticees before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ser condition which was investigated by D.R.I. We hold that appellants are liable for penalty under Section 112 (a). The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sophisticated Marbles and Granite Industries Vs UOI - 2004 (166) ELT 318 (Bom.) in an identical issue of import of second hand machinery held that penalty is imposable and dismissed the writ petition filed by the importers. The said judgement of Hon'ble High Court was upheld by the Apex Court reported in 2004 (170) ELT A264 ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imports then it would be a duty of writ Court to arrest such tendency prevailing amongst the importers of the goods. The Apex Court in the case of Her Shankar and Others v. Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner and Others [1975 (1) SCC 737] ruled that the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to facilitate avoidance of legal obligation and to commit breach of law for the time being in force. The extraordinary jurisdiction of the High C .....

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