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 →

Mittal Alloys Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana

2016 (4) TMI 880 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Period of limitation - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Misdeclaration of goods - Imported Tungsten Carbide Rods and Bits in the name of alloys steel melting scrap of mixed grade, seized and released provisionally - Held that:- it is the case of mis-declaration and therefore the show cause notice can be issued within a period of five years from the date of findng mis-declaration by the investigating authority. Therefore, no reason to interfere .....

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 DRI received an intelligence that the appellant was importing Tungsten Carbide Rods and Bits concealed in the consignments of High Speed/Alloys Steel Melting Scrap imported by them from USA and UAE which were not declared in their import documents, deliberately with an intent to evade customs duty. On the basis of intelligence, DRI examined two consignments of the appellant were seized. On examination of the goods pertaining to bill of entry No.2149362 dated 24.9.2010, Tungsten Carbide Rods .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

clared in the bill of entry and were concealed in the consignment of High Speed/Alloys Steel Melting Scrap. The goods were seized and the seizure memo was issued. Various statements were recovered. After investigation, it was revealed that the appellant has imported two consignments of Tungsten Carbide Rods/Bits concealing in their regular consignment of Alloy Steel/High Speed Steel Melting scrap mixed grade. Therefore, the appellant has suppressed the facts and mis-declared the imported goods. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty to ₹ 10 lakh respectively. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case the goods were seized by DRI on 02.09.2010 and 18.10.2010 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 20.07.2012 which is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore, the extended period of limitation was not invokable. He further submitted that as per section 110 of the Act, the seized good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ease of the goods does not relate to issue of show cause notice within prescribed limit of six months. He also submitted that the show cause notice can be issued within one year and the period of one year can be read as five year in case of mis-statement, suppression and fraud. He further submitted that the fact of importing of goods was within the knowledge of the department since 7.9.2010 and 27.9.2010 declared the import of the goods while mis-declaring them to be alloy steel melting scarp an .....

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