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 →

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Another Versus Jay Polychem India Ltd & Another

2016 (6) TMI 433 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Import of second hand cars mis-declaring them as new - Eligibility for grant of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Customs dated 1st March 2002 - Settlement Commission has granted the benefit of notification and immunity from the penalty and prosecution - Held that:- by giving the proximity of the date of manufacture and the date of import of the car, it cannot be said that the said car ceased to be a new car and became a 'second hand' car at the time of its import. The impugned order of the CC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1-6-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioners : Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate ORDER 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI ) and the Commissioner of Customs, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively is whether the Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission ( CCESC ) is justified in allowing the application filed by the Respondent, Jay Polychem India Ltd. , by its impugned order dated 31 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ity from the prosecution to the Respondent. 2. Background facts to the present writ petition are that the DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi received information regarding a syndicate of persons including one Mr. Jatin Ahuja fraudulently importing high end luxury cars on a large scale from various foreign clients by mis-declaring these cars as new cars whereas such cars were sold and registered in the country of export prior to being exported to India and thus fell in the category of second hand 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

ated 19th August 2009 raised by M/s. A.K. International (IE) Limited, United Kingdom (U.K.) upon the Respondent in respect of the said car was also recovered where the cost, interest and freight ( CIF ) price for the said car was declared as GBF 184842 and the duty was discharged on concessional rate of basic customs duty at 60% by declaring as a new car. 4. Based on the above facts, a show-cause notice ( SCN ) was issued to the Respondent and others calling upon them to show cause as to why the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

khs deposited by M/s. Jay Polychem India Limited during the course of investigation should not be appropriated towards differential duty to the government account. 5. The Respondent then filed a Settlement Application No. 4499-4500/2014 before the Settlement Commission on 19th November 2014. The Respondent admitted the duty liability on account of undervaluation to the tune of ₹ 3,73,298 but it contested the allegation concerning wrongful availment of the exemption notification. 6. The DRI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eolekar) where the question involved again concerns the import of a vehicle which had been registered in the U.K. prior to its import and whether the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March 2002 would be applicable. It is pointed out that the issue in the present petition is under consideration by the Supreme Court in the above SLP (C) No. 243-244 of 2014, and therefore, the issue arising in the present petition should be deferred. 9. The Court finds that a view has been taken by this Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

haser of the car had acted in connivance with the importer and he was aware of all the facts at the time of import. It was held that the Department had failed to discharge its prima facie onus of showing the involvement of the purchaser of the car with its importer. The Court s attention has also been drawn to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Customs (Import) & Noshire Moody 2014 (300) ELT 205 (Bom) where it is noted that registration of the car in the U.K. was onl .....

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