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

2016 (11) TMI 674 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (11) TMI 674 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Smuggling of gold - confiscation of goods - quantum of redemption fine and personal penalty imposed upon the appellant, excessive and exorbitant - Held that: - the impugned order does not deal with the role of two noticees, viz. Karim D. Hajiali and Taherbhai insofar as the charges against the said persons have neither been confirmed nor dropped. To that extent, the impugned order cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside. The Revenue has pointed out .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, for Revenue None for appellant-assessee ORDER Per Raju The appellants, Bharat Chudasama and Bhupendra Chudasama, among others were issued a notice by Revenue for alleged smuggling of gold. On 13.4.1997, these appellants arrived in Mumbai by Air India Flight No.GF-64. When the appellants were proceeding towards the exit, they were intercepted and examined by DRI, Mumbai. On the personal search under panchnama, they were found to be carrying 85 FM gold bars each. They were also carrying US$ 6215 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lakhs each in lieu of confiscation. The foreign currency seized was also confiscated. Absolute confiscation of the cell-phone tape, nylon pouches and plastic carry bags used for packing and concealment of the goods was ordered under Section 118 of the Customs Act. A penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs each was imposed on both the appellants. Against the order of the Commissioner, the appellants Bharat Chudasama and Bhupendra Chudasama filed appeals which were disposed of vide Tribunal order No. C-I/670 .....

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 to ₹ 3 lakhs each. 2. Against the order of the Commissioner, Revenue also filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was filed after the order of the Tribunal was issued in respect of the appeal filed by the appellants. It was held that the Revenue appeal was filed after the date of disposal of the appeal filed by the aggrieved persons. In this situation, the Tribunal held the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable, as the order has already been merged with the final order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ide both the orders of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for de novo consideration independently in the light of judgment of the Hon ble High Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-II vs. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 2009 (233) ELT 446 (Bom.). 4. The issue was posted for hearing on 3.10.2016. None appeared for Bharat Chudasama, Bhupendra Chudasama, Karim D. Hajiali and Taherbhai. 5. Bharat Chudasama and Bhupendra Chudasama have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the quantum of red .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rival hall of module 1 of the airport and that they had not read the panchnama but were only told about the contents of the panchnama. It was argued that the panchas had not witnessed the interception of the appellants and therefore there was no independent corroboration of the testimony of the officers of DRI. It was argued that the quantum of personal penalty and redemption fine is excessive. It was argued that the Revenue has failed to establish that the appellants were intercepted in the pas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the seized gold was not concealed in any manner and the duty sought to be evaded was only to the extent of ₹ 2,18,042/-. In these circumstances, it was argued that the redemption fine and penalty are excessive. 6. Revenue is in appeal against the said order on the grounds that the Commissioner in the impugned order has stated that though the gold is restricted item under the present Exim Policy, the authorities were allowing redemption of concealed/non-declared gold in view of the lib .....

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