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 →

Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence & Anr. Versus M.I. Enterprises & Ors.

2015 (12) TMI 319 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Validity of order of settlement commission - Assessee made importation contrary to the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 as also the Foreign Trade Development & Regulation Act, 1992 - misuse of IEC Code - Held that:- Satish Aggarwala appearing for the petitioner/Directorate of Revenue Intelligence contends that the Settlement Commission has taken a very lenient view in imposing the fines and penalties. According to him, in a case of this nature, the fines should have been much higher as also the 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

- W.P.(C) 9783/2015 & CM No.23515/2015 (stay) - Dated:- 16-10-2015 - Mr Badar Durrez Ahmed And Mr Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ For the Petitioners : Mr Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for petitioners. For the Respondents : Mr Piyush Kumar, Advocate. JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J 1. This writ petition is directed against the final order No.F-2446-48/CUS/15-SC (PB) issued by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, New Delhi on 30.06.2015 whereby the applications for settlement being Nos.4620/201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Unit, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. At that stage, the respondents moved the aforesaid applications for settlement before the Settlement Commission. The settlement applications were allowed to be proceeded with and, ultimately, resulted in the impugned final order. The Settlement Commission observed and held as under:- 15. In the instant case also, mis-use of IE code is a charge in the SCN along with undervaluation. As such, the above observations of the Delhi High Court in the Commissioner of Centr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isclosure of their duty liability and cooperated in the proceedings before the Commission. They have also deposited entire amount of duty demanded in the SCN. 16. So far as role of co-applicant 1 and 2 is concerned, it is clear from the investigations that the imported goods belonged to them and that they used the IE code of the applicant to import goods contrary to the provisions of the Act. The act of undervaluing the goods has also been accepted by them. Undervaluation is a conscious exercise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on Rules. Customs Duty: The Customs Duty in this case is settled at ₹ 17,06,406/- (Rupees seventeen lakh six thousand four hundred six only) against the applicant. An amount of ₹ 17,06,406/- deposited by the applicant is ordered to be appropriated towards the settled amount of duty. Nothing further remains to be paid on this Count. Fine: A fine of ₹ 5,00,000/-( Rupees five lakh only) is imposed in lieu of confiscation of the seized goods. Penalty: Taking into account the facts .....

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