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 C.T. Cotton Yarn Ltd. Versus Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate

2015 (12) TMI 228 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

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 Mumbai High Court and was sold by the receiver. - this relevant factor, has been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 prayer of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng 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 assertion, the petitioner resisted the imposition of custom duty and filed a rep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as there was a Hire Purchase Ag .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ceedings 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 themselves have considered this aspect and have stated that ultimately the liability ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urity 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 subjected to great hardship. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, has op .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce 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 First Appellate Authority have both found the petitioner to be liable to pay cus .....

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