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 →

Manoj Kumar & Sanjay Chauhan Versus C.C., New Delhi (Air Cargo Export)

2015 (12) TMI 1557 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Imposition of penalty - Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 – courier shipment – ownership not claimed – LED \ LCD – gold biscuit – seizure – confiscation – section 111 of the act – whether the provisions of section 111 (l) and 111(m) can be invoked, justifying imposition of penalty under section 112 of the Act? - Held that: - no Bill of Entry with regard to the goods imported was filed. Since no Bill of Entry in the present case has been filed with regard to the imported goods and the provisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri B.K. Singh, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri Vaibhav Bhatnagar, D.R. ORDER Imposition of penalty on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the subject matter of present dispute. The brief facts of the case are that a courier shipment under AWB No.108524754 arrived from Dubai and reached the IGI Airport, New Delhi on 11.05.2012. The ownership of the goods was not claimed. Out of 10 bags, 9 were found contained 13 Television sets i.e. LCD/LED. The rest one bag .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ltd. and Shri Sanjay Chauhan, Operation Executive of M/s. Budget Couriers Pvt. Ltd. 2. In appeal against the Adjudication order dated 30.12.2013, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 11.05.2015 has reduced the penalty on Shri Sanjay Chauhan to ₹ 1,50,000/- and held that the imposition of penalty on Shri Manjok Kumar in the adjudication order is justified. Hence, this present appeals are before the Tribunal. 3. Shri B.K. Singh, the ld. Advocate for the appellant subm .....

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 clause (m), the ld. Advocate submits that the said provision can be applicable in the circumstances, where there is mis-declaration in value. In other words, it is the submission of the ld. Advocate that since no Bill of Entry has been filed, which is an admitted fact on record, the provisions of both clauses (l) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be applicable for confiscation of goods, resulting in imposition of penalty under Section 112 ibid. 4. Per contra, Shri G.R. S .....

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