GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 228 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2015 (12) TMI 228 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 655 (M. P.) - Denial of Exemption of duty - Held that:- Respondent no.1 Tribunal, while rejecting the petitioner's application for exemption from paying the custom duty at the time of filing the appeal, has not taken into account the fact that the assets of the petitioner have been taken over and sold under the provisions of the SARFASI Act and that the machine in question was taken into custody by the receiver under order of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee. - W.P No. 3537/2007 - Dated:- 27-8-2015 - U.C. Maheshari And R.S. Jha, JJ ORDER Per R. S. Jha, J :- Smt. Nandita Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Anuradha Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 11.6.2007, Annexure P-10, passed by respondent no.1 Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. The petitioner, being aggrieved, took up proceedings against the same contending that the petitioner had entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement on 23.3.1998 with M/s Tata Finance Limited for purchase and import of a machine namely, 'Murata Mach Coner Automatic Cone Winder'. It was submitted that as per the agreement between the petitioner and M/s Tata Finance Limited, the liability towards payment of custom duty was taken over by M/s Tata Finance Limited. On the basis of the aforesaid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ciation and relief under other heads, reduced the liability towards custom duty of the petitioner to ₹ 18,50,939/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, filed an appeal before respondent no.1 Tribunal alongwith an application under Section 129E of the Act, for exemption from paying the custom duty assessed by the appellate authority. The application, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed by order dated 11.6.2007, hence this petition. It is submitte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petitioner has further contended that the petitioner is a sick industry and proceedings in that respect are pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). It is also contended that the machine in question was ultimately purchased by M/s Vamptex Traders and it is infact the responsibility of M/s Vamptex Traders to pay the duty and, therefore, the liability towards custom duty cannot be enforced against the petitioner. It is submitted that once the authorities themsel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFASI Act'). It is stated that as the assets of the petitioner have been disposed of, therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to pay custom duty as ordered by the Tribunal. It is also alleged that the petitioner has no cash or bank balance and, therefore, if the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is enforced, the petitioner would be subject .....

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 same on the strength of an agreement between the petitioner and M/s Tata Finance Limited is misconceived. It is also submitted that the proceedings before the BIFR or the existence of a hire purchase agreement would not have any impact on the liability of the petitioner to pay duty under the law and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner to the contrary deserves no consideration. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the assessing authority as well as the .....

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