Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mr. Ranjit Sundaramurthy Versus The Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Imports)

2015 (9) TMI 1074 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Waiver of pre-deposit - tribunal dismissed the appeal for non compliance with an order imposing a pre-deposit condition. - appellant actually sought was a waiver of penalty, due to the fact that the duty itself was not assessed and also due to the admitted fact that the vehicle was seized from the custody of a third party. - Held that:- The fact remains that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 129E in view of the admitted position that the vehicle was seized from the custody of 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

ndition, even if it is leviable, cannot be twice the amount of penalty, which was the only item that was assessed even in the order on appeal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to succeed. - Matter restored before the tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (NPD) No.1423 of 2015, M.P.No.1 of 2015 - Dated:- 6-8-2015 - V. Ramasubramanian And T. Mathivanan, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr N Viswanathan For the Respondent : Mr V Sundare .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Mr.V. Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel to take notice for the second respondent. 3. The appellant imported a Nissan GTR car, under a bill of entry dated 3.11.2008. It was allegedly imported for personal use. After declaring that it was a brand new car, duty was paid claiming benefit under S.No.344(2) of Notification No.21/2002 dated 1.3.2002. 4. After the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence gathered information that the car was undervalued at the time of import, the appellant was issu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, 2007. ii) I re-determine the value of the subject vehicle as USD 98936 as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3(1) read with Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. iii) I confirm the demand of differential duty of ₹ 46,85,350/- (Rupees forth six lakhs eighty five thousand three hundred and fifty only) as per proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. iv) I confirm the demand of interest on differential duty under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

As penalty is imposed under Section 114A, I do not impose any penalty of Shri Ranjit Sundaramurthy under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act,1962. viii) I impose a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on Shri Alberto Bestonso under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. ix) I also impose a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on Shri Ranjit Sundaramurthy under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962." 5. The appellant filed a statutory appeal before the Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.V.). The group may calculate the correct duty as discussed supra and the difference of duty may be collected under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (3) Appropriate interest on the differential duty may be collected under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. (4) The differential duty so arrived should be imposed as penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the appellant is given an option to pay the reduced penalty @ 25% so imposed if the same is paid within one mont .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant actually sought was a waiver of penalty, due to the fact that the duty itself was not assessed and also due to the admitted fact that the vehicle was seized from the custody of a third party. 7. However, on the miscellaneous application for waiver, the Tribunal passed an order on 4.2.2015 directing the appellant to deposit ₹ 10 lakhs within four weeks. After the expiry of the period of four weeks, the Tribunal passed an order dated 15.4.2015, dismissing the appeal on the ground tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version