Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Shri Anil Kumar Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna

2015 (12) TMI 408 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Confiscation of goods - smuggling of goods - whether mobile phones are rightly confiscated as smuggled goods and whether appellant is the rightful owner of the goods - Held that:- No investigations at all were conducted by the department to check the authenticity of the documents produced by the appellant. There was also no other claimant of present seized mobile phones of foreign origin and mobile phones are not notified under Sec 123 of the Customs Act 1962 where onus shifts to the owner / imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oods were of smuggled nature when no investigation was done at sellers end. In the absence of any other claimant of goods the present appellant has to be considered as the rightful owner. Appellant cannot be questioned with respect to the restrictions imposed by DGFT when the same were also not the subject matter of the show cause notice. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. C/70782/2013 - ORDER No. FO/A/75613/15 - Dated:- 16-10-2015 - Shri H.K. Thakur, Technical Member For the Petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ging to the appellant were seized an 12/8/2012 as unclaimed. That by the time appellant could came to know about the seizure of his goods and lodge claim a show cause notice dt 21/8/2012 was issued by the department before the appellant went to claim the goods vide his petition dt 27/8/2012. That a bill regarding purchase of mobile phones from Delhi was furnished during the adjudication & appeal proceedings but no investigations were done by the department to verify the claim of 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

el) (v) Tokyo Electronics-2007 (212) ELT 86 (Tri-Del) (vi) Sundarlal-2004 (165) ELT 250 (Tri-Kol.) 3 Sh. N.K. Naskar AC (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that import of mobile phones, is prohibited as per Notf. No. 14/2009-2014 dt 14/10/2009 issued by DGFT, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi. Learned AR thus strongly defended the order passed by the first appellate authority on the grounds that he has elaborately discussed the prohibitions. That appellant did not come fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant made a claim with respect to seized goods on 27/08/2012 alongwith copies of the purchase bills. No investigations at all were conducted by the department to check the authenticity of the documents produced by the appellant. There was also no other claimant of present seized mobile phones of foreign origin and mobile phones are not notified under Sec 123 of the Customs Act 1962 where onus shifts to the owner / importer of the goods. Appellant has never claimed to be the original importer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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