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 →

Mrs. Rajeshwari Sanjay Patel Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Nhava Sheva

2015 (3) TMI 1082 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Confiscation of car - car had been imported in violation of the provisions of Public Notice No. 3PN/1997-02 dated 31.3.1997 - Misdeclaration of manufacturer - Undervaluation - Held that:- It is a settled matter that the duty cannot be jointly demanded from the appellant as well as Shri Sudhakar Bhoja. In any case duty can only be demanded from the importer in terms of Section 28AB of the Customs Act as held by the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of VXL India Ltd. which decision was affi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

voked the restriction of no sale for two years from the date of importation whereas the Public Notice clearly stipulates that the importer is free to sell the car in the open market after his return to India without any restriction. In the circumstances of the case, we find no reason to doubt the bona fide of the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Application No. C/MA(Ors.)92939/2015-Mum. In Appeal No. C/614/2008-Mum. - Final Order No. A/815/2015-WZB/CB and M/1759/2015-WZB/CB - Dated: .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5,56,594/- under Section 28AB along with penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/-under Section 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant in this case Shri Sanjay J. Patel passed away in 2010. An application has been filed by his wife under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules with the request that the appeal proceedings allowed to be continued in the name of the applicants wife being a successor in interest of the applicant. Copies of the death certificate of the applicant and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd ground is that the year of manufacture of the car had been misdeclared leading to undervaluation and consequent less payment of duty on the car which had been imported by Shri Sudhakar Bhoja Safaliga. The appellant claimed that the entire transaction of purchase of the car was done through one Shri Javed M. Desai. Show cause notice was issued resulting in the confiscation with an option to pay redemption fine, demand of additional duty and imposition of penalty on Shri Sanjay Patel apart from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mport), Bombay Vs. VXL India Ltd. The second contention is that even redemption fine can only be demanded from the actual importer and not from the person who has purchased the car from the importer. He relied on the decision of Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. Five Star Shipping Co. Ltd. 2012 (278) E.L.T. 196 (Kar.). On the issue of penalty, the Ld. Counsel submitted that being a bona fide purchaser he was not aware of the year of manufacture .....

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