Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ashok Chhajed Versus Commissioner of Customs, Pune

2016 (11) TMI 5 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Levy of penalty for abetting Undervalution - retraction of statement - imposition of penalties u/s 112 of the CA, 1962 - import of body sprays - Held that: - From the statement of the appellant recorded by the DRI it can be seen that the appellant ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the part of the appellant. It is also a fact that information was received from Indian High Commission has not been made part of relied upon documents. Looking at the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the primary role in the undervaluatio .....

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 ₹ 23,08,177/- is excessive. In view of the facts of the case, the penalty is revised from ₹ 23,08,177/- to ₹ 5 lakhs - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - C/520/05 - A/90615/16/CB - Dated:- 27-9-2016 - 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

ellant was partner of the firm. DRI investigated the case of evasion of customs duty against Sunspur Pvt. Ltd. The case was based on various statements recorded by DRI and information collected from High Commission of India, London. Information recei .....

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 (iv) price list of Goldspur Ltd. U.K. for export to India. The said letter also mentioned that Mr. Pannessar asserted that duplicate invoices were issued on the request of Shri Ashok Chhajed, the appellant. The demand of duty was confirmed against .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

information received from High Commission of India, London has not been made part of the relied upon documents to the show-cause notice and therefore cannot be used against them. He further argued that the statements of Ashok Chhajed recorded on 11.0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sive. 3. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. He argued that the three statements of the appellant were recorded and there was no immediate retraction against any statement. The appellant retracted the statement only after allowing gap of 1=-2 months .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt was confronted with the information received from the High Commission of India, London and therefore the appellant cannot claim that they were not aware of the same. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. From the statement of the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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