Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 890 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (5) TMI 890 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Waiver of penalty - DEPB license obtained through fraudulent means were used by the various importers for importation of the goods - Confiscation of goods - Undue rebate of Central excise duty - malafide intention - Held that:- the appellants have declared the manufacturer as a supporting manufacturer and the goods so procured from the so called supporting manufacturer were not manufactured by the said manufacturer. If this is so then all the material par .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

actory of M/s. Siddhi Creative, who has issued the invoices and found that M/s. Siddhi Creative did not have the manufacturing unit. Knowingly this fact, he has mis-declared the bogus ARE-1s in the shipping bills. Thus, he was indulged in entire offence committed by the appellant colluding with M/s Siddhi Creative. It is found that the equal amount of penalty was imposed each on the appellant company as well as Shri Rajendra Doshi. Taking into consideration that Shri Rajendra Doshi is an employe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.Commr. (A.R) ORDER These appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.286-287/MCH/ADC/Gr.V/2013 dt. 19.4.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (A) Mumbai-I, whereby the Order-in-Original No.49/2012-13/Group-V/ADC/SKR dated 09/10/2012 was upheld except for imposition of redemption fine. 2. The facts of the case is that an intelligence was received that the appellant was involved in using bogus fictitious 5 ARE-1s showing fictitious proprietorship unit viz. M/s. Siddhi Creative, Boise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o goods were purchased/brought/manufactured or sold in the said unit of the supporting manufacture. This was admitted by the proprietor. There was mala fide intention of the proprietor to claim undue rebate of Central Excise duty and inflate the value of the export goods for claiming undue DEPB benefit. The goods mentioned under impugned 5ARE-1s were shown as sold to the appellant who was a merchant exporter. Thus it appeared that there was willful misstatement and suppression of facts by the ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed to have been confiscated under Section 113(d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority has imposed redemption fine of ₹ 12,58,000/- under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of ₹ 5,03,000/- under Section 114 of Customs Act, on the other appellant Shri Rajendra Doshi, General Manager of the appellant company a penalty of Rs, 5,03,000/- was also imposed. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original both the appellants filed appeal before Commissioner (Ap .....

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 Customs Act. In the present case, the appellant is merchant exporters who have procured the goods from the manufacturer under the cover of ARE.1s. The goods before being permitted to be exported are subject to verification and permitted for export after customs supervision and container sealing. The appellant have bonafidle purchased the goods for export and the same has been exported, their export is not in dispute. If at all any offence or wrong doing committed by the manufacturer the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iscation if it entered for exportation which do not correspond in respect of value or in any material particular with the entry made under this Act. In the present case, there is no charge on the appellant that they have mis-declared any material particular in the export documents. Therefore the penalty was wrongly imposed on the appellants under Section 114 of the Act. 4. On the other hand, Shri L. Devendra Singh Maan Learned Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rticular of the ARE-1 was misdeclared in shipping bill of the appellant. Thus, they committed the offence in regard to Section 113(i) and therefore the penalty was correctly imposed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the penalty was imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act have committed an offence falling under Section 113(d) and 113(i) of the Act, the same are reproduced below: Section 113. Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(i) any goods entered for exportation which do not correspond in respect of value or in any material particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 77; (ii) ……… (j) ………. (k) …….. (l)…….. From the plain reading of the above provision, I find that when the goods so exported do not correspond in respect of value or in any material particular with the entry made unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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