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 →

KRISHNA CLEANING AGENCY AND 4 Versus UNION OF INDIA AND 2

2016 (2) TMI 311 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Levy of penalties under the Customs Act for the alleged acts of smuggling of cigarettes - Held that:- With respect to petitioner No.1-Krishna Clearing, we are not inclined to entertain this petition in view of availability of alternative statutory remedy. We would relegate petitioner No.1 to such remedy before the Tribunal. - With respect to rest of the petitioners, facts are not serious in dispute. The Commissioner having dropped the show cause notice proceedings qua these petitioners, 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

ssioner could not have disturbed such order which would be plainly opposed to the principles of natural justice - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18023 of 2015 - Dated:- 20-1-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. MOHINDER PAL, JJ. FOR THE PETITONER : MR PARESH M DAVE, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MRS VD NANAVATI, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Petitioners have challenged an order dated 12.10.2015 as at Annexure-G to the petition passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), C .....

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 of cigarettes. The joint Commissioner of Customs by order dated 29.04.2015 dropped the proceedings initiated under the notice dated 28.04.2014. 3. It appears that, for whatever reason, the Department preferred appeal against the said order-in-original only against Krishna Clearing. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, took cognizance of such appeal only qua the partnership firm. To this aspect of the matter, there is no dispute. When the appeal was thus heard by the Commissioner (Appeals), .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n his opinion, full facts were not available on the record. Relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reads as under: 6.7 The allegations made in the Show Cause Notices are confirmed. (i) The goods i.e. 68630 kgs of Heavy Melting Scrap, contained in the Container Numbers (I) BAXU 2600877 (ii) BAXU 2620512 (iii) BAXU 2620512 (iv) BAXU 3600784 valued at ₹ 15,37,090/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Ninety only), are liable for confiscation under the provisions o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

valued as ₹ 9,50,000/-), GJ-12-Y-8001 (having valued as ₹ 6,00,000/-), GJ-12Y-7002 (having valued as ₹ 6,00,000/-) & GJ-12W-7606 (having valued as ₹ 3,50,000/-) are liable for confiscation under section 115 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (iv) CONCOR, Gandhidham and M/s.Krishna Clearing Agency, Gandhidham are liable for penalty under section 112(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 45 ibid and Regulation Goods Imported (Conditions of Transhipment) Regulation, 19 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

directions for de novo decision, becomes sine qua non to meet the ends of justice... …. ….. ….. …. ….. ….. ORDER 7. The Order No.KDL/JC/RMG/01/2015 dated 29.04.2015 of the lower authority is set aside with a direction that the adjudicating authority will impose penalties along with confiscation & appropriate redemption fine (if any), keeping in view the above findings & observations. While carrying out adjudication, the gravity of the offence &am .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

round raised by the counsel for petitioner was that, even with respect to Krishna Clearing, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to take into account the contentions and authorities cited before the appellate Commissioner. His order was, therefore, illegal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms.Vaibhavi Nanavaty for the Department firstly contended that, against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), statutory appeal lies before the Tribunal. She further submitted that the order of Commissioner (A .....

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