GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 1193 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (5) TMI 1193 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine and imposition of penalty - Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Mis-declaration of description of imported goods - Zinc Ash” as “Zinc Dross” - No intention to evade duty - Held that:- the goods imported are Zinc Ash and not Zinc Dross. Therefore, mis-declaration of the description of the goods and non-eligibility for import of the goods under the advance licence mentioned in the Bill of Entry is established. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d CCE Vs G.P.Presstress Concrete Works [2012 (8) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. We, therefore, extend the said benefit to the Appellants subject to fulfillment of conditions thereof. The impugned order is upheld with the above modification. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Appeal No. C/71/2008 - Order No. A/10456/2016 - Dated:- 25-5-2016 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellants: Shri Manish Jain, Advocate For the Respondents: Shri Al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ersonal hearing. Consequently, the matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla vide impugned order dt.10.01.2008, wherein he confiscated the said goods valued at ₹ 20,57,201.46 and allowed redemption of the same on payment of fine of ₹ 2 lakhs. He also charged duty of ₹ 6,37,967/- on the said goods and imposed equivalent amount of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants are before us. 2. Heard both sides .....

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 evade duty. 3. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that it is not disputed that the goods imported are Zinc Ash instead of Zinc Dross as declared in the Bill of Entry. He submits that only Zinc Dross is allowed for import in the advance licence mentioned in the Bill of Entry. Zinc Ash is restricted and not covered by the said advance licence. He further submits that the Appellant had produced a copy of licence issued by Central Pollution Control Boa .....

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