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 →

Zakir Hussain Versus The Union of India And Others

2015 (9) TMI 1198 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Seizure of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that:- Order in Original was passed on 1st April, 2005 after recording the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thereafter notice was issued and adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to this appellant. At length there is a discussion about the goods seized from the premises of this appellant in the Order in Original dated 1st April, 2005 and ultimately redemption fine was imposed of ₹ 3.00 Lacs and a p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thout demanding the custom duty, an order was passed by the Joint Commissioner of Custom and the Commissioner of Customs, Patna has further directed to prefer appeal against the Order in Original passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs dated 1st April, 2005. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 37 of 2006 - Dated:- 8-7-2015 - D. N. Patel And Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ. For the Appellant : M/s. Amit Kumar Das, D.K. Chakravorty For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Ku .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t several items were seized by the respondents when the search was carried out at the premises of this appellant on 17th September, 2003 who is dealing with mobiles and other electronic items. 3) Order in Original was passed on 1st April, 2005 after recording the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thereafter notice was issued and adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to this appellant. At length there is a discussion about the goods seized from the premises of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been reduced from ₹ 3.00 lacs to ₹ 1.5 lacs while maintaining the penalty of ₹ 50000/-. 5) It appears that for certain goods, there is an explanation,, whereas, for rest of the goods, there is no explanation with this appellant. At length, the counsel for both sides have argued out about several mobile phones, hand-camera, etc. 6) We, therefore, thought it fit to remand the matter to the CESTAT to decide the explanations for several mobile phones given by this appellant for wh .....

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