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 Stupa Consulting Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi

2016 (3) TMI 469 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Imposition of Redemption fine and penalty - Section 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Import of second hand car by misdeclaring it as new car - Held that:- appellant has purchased the car after clearance from the Customs as bona fide purchaser of the car. Therefore, the imported car is liable to be confiscation but as the redemption fine imposed is excessively high, it is to be reduced followed by the case of M/s. Buhariwala Logistics And Shri Vishvas Uday Singh Laad Versus C.C. (Import .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aljeet Singh, Adv For the Respondent : Shri B B Sharma, AR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposing the Redemption fine and imposition of penalty under section 112 (a) and 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that an intelligence was received by DRI that one Shri Sumit Walia was importing high end luxury cars from various foreign suppliers by mis-declaring as new whereas in reality all such cars were sold and registered in 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

r Range Rover 3.6 TDV8 car bearing Chassis No. SALLMAM238A290383 under Invoice No. 9855 dated 3.6.2008 of M/s. A K international (IE) Ltd., Royal House, England. The price of the car was 39100USD and duty was discharged on concessional rate of basic Customs duty (BCD) as new car. The said car was purchased in the name of Shri Vikas Sharma who filed Bill of Entry for claims of the car. After conducting investigation, it was revealed that the impugned car was registered in the name of M/s. Stupa 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

ong with co-noticee for alleged importation of car. Matter was adjudicated. Car was held liable for confiscation and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 16 lakh. A penalty of ₹ 67,59,211/- was imposed on the appellant under section 1I2(a) and section 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of ₹ 5 lakh was also imposed on the appellant under section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me. 3. Shri Kamaljeet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

further submits that no statement of the appellant was recorded at the time of seizure of the car. Director of the appellant company was out of town and therefore, show cause notice was issued immediately without recording any statement of the appellant. He also submits that since the appellant has no direct connection with the import of impugned car, therefore, the appellant purchased the car in bonafide belief and car was cleared by Customs by importer and there was no reason of further asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sion of this Tribunal in the case of Rahul Bhandare vs. CC (Imports) [2012 (285) ELT 225 (Tri)]. 4. He further submits that for imposition of redemption fine, he is a bonafide purchaser of car, therefore, redemption fine is not imposable in the light of decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE vs. Five Star Shipping Co. [2012 (278) ELT 196 (Kar)] wherein it was held that the car which is cleared by the Customs department and after such clearance, the purchase was effected .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 55023-55024/2014 dated 17.12.2014 reduced the redemption fine imposed to 23% of imposed by the adjudicating authority and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. Therefore, in this case also, redemption fine be reduced to 23% and penalties be waived. 5. On the other hand, learned AR relied on the observations made by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 7. On perusal of the record, and thorough consideration of the submissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s bona fide purchaser of the car. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is a second purchaser of the car after importation in India and is bona fide purchaser of the car. It is also the contention of the appellant that car is not old car and is not excisable as impugned car has been imported by Shri Sumit Walia or the importer Shri Vikas Sharma. Therefore, the said appellate order has attained finality. We also find that in similar set of facts of the case of Shri Vishvas Uday Singh Laad (supra) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

77; 60 lakhs for purchase of the car. In these circumstances, we hold that the appellant is a subsequent purchase of the car after importation in India and bona fide purchaser of the car. Further, we find that Appellant No.2 has contended the valuation of the car and submitted that the car is not an old car is not acceptable as the impugned order has not been challenged by Shri Sumit Walia and Shri Tarun Kumar, therefore, the said part of the order has attained finality. In these circumstances, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

find that the redemption fine imposed is highly excessive. Therefore, we reduce the redemption fine to ₹ 5 lakhs. On payment of such redemption fine, the car shall be released to Appellant No. 2. Further we find that the appellant is the bona fide purchaser of the car and no statement of the appellant has been recorded and no role of the appellant has been discussed. Therefore, we hold that penalties under sections 112(a) and 114AA were not imposable on the appellant. In these circumstance .....

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