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 →

Nitco Tiles Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

2016 (4) TMI 362 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Imposition of fine and penalty - Export of marble articles such as table tops - Declared value on higher side and there is variation in import prices, so the goods are taken back to town - as goods are liable for confiscation, redeem them on payment of fine and penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- and ₹ 10,000/- respectively but after department being gone into appeal, the fine and penalty increased to ₹ 4,00,000/- and ₹ 7,50,000/- respectively - Held that:- the earlier adjudicating 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

the learned Commissioner has also observed that by overvaluation, the appellant would have got the benefits of customs duty to the tune of ₹ 11,17,402.73 (approx.) by showing the export towards fulfilment of export obligation under the EPCG licence dated 21.3.1996. As per the remand order of the Tribunal, the learned Commissioner redetermined the redemption fine and revised it to ₹ 4,00,000/- which, according to our opinion, is not excessive and therefore, upheld. However, the learn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

RDER Per S.S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), dated 7.4.2004. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in export of marble articles such as table tops and in March 2000, the appellant filed two shipping bills bearing No.1000028444 dated 15.3.2000 and No.1000028895 dated 16.3.2000 seeking to export two consignments of marble articles against EPCG licence No.01500322/1/13/10/01 dated 21.3.199 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

labour cost/workmanship. In view of the objection raised by the department, the appellant requested for permission to take back the goods to town. The Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the matter vide his order dated 31.7.2000 and held the goods to be liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. He gave option to the appellant to redeem the goods and take them back to the town on payment of a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- for each of the two consignments and also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

377; 4,00,000/- and penalty of ₹ 7,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fine and penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner are excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the learned Commissioner should have maintained the same fine and penalty which were imposed by the earlier Commissioner. He further submitted that the appellant in fact did not get any undue benefit .....

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