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 →

M/s. Buhariwala Logistics Versus C.C.(I & G) , New Delhi

2015 (11) TMI 1087 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Violation of the provisions of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004 - lapse on the part of Mr. G.S. Prince who was a G card-holder of the appellant - Misdeclaration of goods - Import of second hand cars - Held that:- Mr. G.S. Prince admitted in his statement that he acted in his personal capacity and the appellant. CHA was not aware his activities in this regard. It is also seen that the appellant s statement was never recorded and there is no evidence to suggest that the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ployer (i.e. the appellant) cannot be penalised. - where the agent was authorised expressely or impliedly by the owner, the owner shall also be liable for the actions of agent. In the present case, no evidence has come on record that the appellant authorised Mr. G.S. Prince expressly or impliedly. - Levy of penalties set aside - Decided in favour of appellants. - Application No.C/MISC/50767/2015-CU[DB], Appeal No.C/50992/2015-CU[DB] - Final Order Nos.53036-53044/2015 - Dated:- 7-9-2015 - Mr. G. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-CU[DB], Appeal No.C/50995/2015-CU[DB], Application No.C/MISC/50850/2015-CU[DB], Appeal No.C/51182/2015-CU[DB], Application No.C/MISC/51130/2015-CU[DB]. Appeal No.C/51563/2015-CU[DB], Application No.C/MISC/51161/2015-CU[DB], Appeal No.C/51751/2015-CU[DB] Appeals have been filed against the respective Orders-in-Original passed by C.C.(I&G), New Delhi in terms of which penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs was imposed on the appellant vide the respective orders-in-original. 2. The facts of the case are t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ions of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004. 3. The appellant has contended that (i) it was not concerned with the activities of Shri Sumit Walia and his associates and the fraudulent activities attributed to it were undertaken by Shri G.S. Prince (who was its employee and G card holder) in his personal capacity and without its knowledge. (ii) In another case involving identical/similar facts, the appeal has been allowed vide CESTAT Final Order Nos.55023-55024, dated 17.12.2014 e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ibility regarding the action of Mr. G.S. Prince. (ii) It has been held by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Jasjeet Singh Marwaha Vs. Union of India [2009 (239) ELT 407 (Del.)] that in the circumstances penalty on the CHA can be imposed and that similar view has been held by Karnataka High Court in the case of Clear Fast Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCC, Bangalore [2011 (272) ELT 58 (Kar.)]. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. In this regard, we find that Mr. G.S. Prince admitted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es imposed upon it on similar grounds and on the basis of similar evidence. CESTAT in that order came to a finding that there was no evidence to prove the involvement of the appellant, that its employee had suo motu acted for his personal greed and beyond the scope of duty and therefore the employer (i.e. the appellant) cannot be penalised. Para 12 of the said order is reproduced below:- 12. We find that in the case of Appellant No.1, no statement of the appellant was recorded. Moreover, during .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, the adjudicating authority has observed as under:- F) Coming on the question of penalty on noticee No.(vi) M/s. Buhariwala Logistics I observe that in the show cause notice MN/s. Buhariwala Logistics have been charged through their G-Card Holder G.S. Prince that by virtue of their action of facilitating the fraudulent imports in violations of the provisions of CHALR, 2004 they have made themselves liable for Penalty under Section 112 and Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 as applicable. I f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pide car in the name of Commercial Attache of the Embassy of Vietnam and mis-declaration/ suppression of proper value of the said car. I have gone through the written & oral submissions of M/s. Buhariwala Logistics that they were not involved in the said violation since, actually it was Shri G.S. Prince who facilitated and handled the clearance of the imported vehicle without the knowledge of the CHA M/s. Buhariwala Logistics. Even during the investigation stage, none of the persons involved .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

act, I refrain from imposing any penalty on M/s. Buhariwala Logistics in the present case. Thereafter the penalty on the appellant has been dropped but the penalty on Shri G.S. Prince was imposed. Further we find that in the case of CC Vs. Vaz Forwarding Ltd.(supra), wherein the penalty was dropped on the CHA in absence of evidence of the knowledge of the CHA. Further, in the case of S.Y Ranade (supra), it was held that there is no evidence to prove the involvement of the CHA and an employee has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y, we set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. As regards the judgement of Karnataka High Court cited by ld. Departmental Representative in the case of Clear Fast Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCC, Bangalore (supra), we find that in that case the High Court merely held that there was no substantial question of law which arose for its examination. Thus, the judgement would not adversely hit the CESTAT Final Order cited above. As regards the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Jasjeet Sin .....

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