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 →

KUSH GEMS PVT LTD AN 5 Versus UNION OF INDIA AND 2

2016 (4) TMI 683 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Confiscation of seized rough diamonds - Diamonds provisionally released by the time order is passed by Adjudicating Authority (AA) - AA ordered redemption fine of ₹ 32.61 lacs on the petitioners, and directed that the bank guarantee of ₹ 32.61 lacs furnished by the petitioners may be appropriated against such redemption fine. Additionally, there were also fines imposed. - Held that:- If there is any error apparent on the face of the record which requires rectification, it is alwa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by confiscation and redemption fine. If therefore, the petitioners pay such redemption fine, they should be entitled to return of the bank guarantees and cancellation of the bonds. The redemption fine and the penalties having been modified by the Appellate Authority, direction ought to have been given for return of the bank guarantee and cancellation of the bonds upon the petitioners depositing substituted redemption fine. Linking the return of the bank guarantee and the cancellation of bond to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR PARESH M DAVE, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. These petitions arise in common factual background and they have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common order. For convenience, we may record facts arising in Special Civil Application No.12494 of 2015. 2. The petitioners are private limited company and its directors. The Customs Department had issued show cause not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 1 consignment of rough diamonds (containing total 3 packets) totally weighing 975.180 carats presented for import under Bill of entry no.8816 dated 18.01.2013. I hereby redetermine at US $ 2,50,769.60 and compute assessable value as ₹ 1,39,93,571/and hereby reject the value of US $ 8,63,680.20 declared by them, under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation (Determination of value of the imported goods) Rules, 2007. (ii) I hereby order the confiscation of 975.180 car .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion, then the Bank Guarantee (B.G.) of ₹ 32,61,000/against Inv. No.83/15.03.2012, already furnished by them may be appropriated against this option. (iii) I impose penalty of ₹ 70,00,000/( Rupees Seventy lac only) under Section 112 on M/s.Kush Gems P. Ltd. (iv) I impose penalty of ₹ 70,00,000/( Rupees Seventy lac only) under Section 112 on Shri Naresh Mehta, Director of M/s.Kush Gems P. Ltd. 3. Thus, the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the seized rough diamonds. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

authority allowed the appeal in part and disposed of the same as under: 28. In view of my above discussion, the appeals are partly allowed and accordingly, I modify the order of the adjudicating authority in respect of fine and penalty as under, in the interest of justice: 29. On payment of redemption fine and penalty if any, (7.5% penalty already paid by them as predeposit for filing appeal), B.G. (Bank Guarantee) given at the time of provisional release of diamonds may be returned to the conc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ayment of penalty for release of the bank guarantees and cancellation of the bonds, the petitioner filed a rectification application dated 31.03.2015. In such application, it was contended that the addition of words and penalty if any was a mere typographical error and therefore, be deleted from the operative portion of the order. This application came to be dismissed by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 05.05.2015, in which, he held that having passed and signed the order he has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Law Ministry's opinion and the CBEC circular dated 16.12.1999. Therefore, while agreeing that redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation of goods may not have relation with penalty imposed for offence committed by the appellants; this authority is now functus officio after signing the order. The appellants may take recourse to legal remedies available to them in law against the final order passed by this authority. 7. Learned counsel Shri Paritosh Gupta for the petitioner submitted th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that it was a mere error despite which he refused to exercise its power of rectification. He submitted that the petitioners have already preferred appeal before the Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, against the order of the appellate authority to the extent it is adverse to the petitioners and such appeal is pending. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Buch for the department submitted that when the appeal of the petitioners is pending before the Tribunal, interference by .....

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