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

2015 (11) TMI 763 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2015 (11) TMI 763 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 565 (Bom.) - Imposition of redemption fine - Confiscation of goods - Demand of differential duty - Short payment of duty - Settlement commission directed for confiscation of goods and imposed redemption fine - Held that:- from a reading of the entire order of the Settlement Commission that this direction is patently inconsistent with the conclusions reached by the Settlement Commission and noted above. We, therefore, are of the opinion 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

Writ Petition No.1979 OF 2013 - Dated:- 10-8-2015 - S.C. Dharmadhikari & G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. J.C. Patel i/b Mr. Sagar V. Kasar For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, Mr. Sujay Kantawalla with Mr. Brijesh Pathak ORDER P.C: 1. The Settlement Commission has passed an order on 2232013, copy of which is at AnnexureD (page 81) and the order has been assailed before us to the extent of imposition of fine. Paragraph 35 of the operative order directs settlement of the ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cars. An equivalent amount is ordered to be appropriated from the amount recovered from the residence of applicant no.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this part of the order cannot be sustained because an equivalent amount is ordered to be appropriated from the amount recovered from the residence of the petitioner/original applicant No.2. In the present case, fine has been imposed because the seized cars are liable for confiscation under the provisions invok .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d respondent failed to appreciate that the vehicles in question were seized from the possession of the third respondent. They were provisionally released to him on execution of Bonds and Bank Guarantees. The same were executed by the third respondent and therefore any direction of this nature is unsustainable in law. The direction, therefore, could not have been issued. If at all there was any liability, it was on the third respondent and not the petitioner. 3. Upon such a contention which was r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve heard the parties and Mr. Mishra fairly conceded that there is no material in the possession of the authorities by which such a direction could be sustained. On whom fine should be imposed and should be directed to be paid is a matter which should not be clarified by this Court, is the submission of Mr. Kantawalla. If the matter is to go back to the Settlement Commission only for this limited purpose, then the request of the third respondent is that this Court should not make any observations .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and the officers recovered ₹ 5.50 lakhs in cash under panchnama dated 592009. The order of the Settlement Commission then recites that applicant No.2 had brought the said vehicles for the purpose of selling the same on behalf of the importers and had informed applicant No.1 that the vehicles are properly duty paid. The argument then was that applicant No.1 was only a dealer and acted as an agent for the purpose of sale of the vehicles on the request of applicant No.2. The stand of applica .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e was approached by applicant No.1 with an offer to be his partner in the import of cars and sports utility vehicles as well. The applicant No.1 informed that it is he who would arrange for sourcing the vehicles. That is how the matter was discussed and the willingness expressed. However, the order of the Settlement Commission and the proceedings before it refer to another deal by applicant No.2 and what we are concerned with really is not the version of the parties as noted by the Commission bu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0/as payment of differential duty and other liabilities in respect of five imported vehicles. On 982010, another statement of this applicant No.1/respondent No.3 before us was again recorded and on that day he deposited a sum of ₹ 11,61,126/as differential duty and ₹ 4,32,320/as interest in respect of an imported Range Rover sports vehicle. Ten days before issuance of a show cause notice, an amount of ₹ 8,26,116/was paid towards the differential duty. Both the applicants have 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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