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 →

Shanoob M.S. Versus Commissioner of Customs

2017 (1) TMI 749 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Issue of SCN beyond 5 years - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - import of Harley Davidson motor bike - natural justice - Held that: - the Department has not conducted the investigation properly by not taking the investigation to its logical end. The Department has merely recovered the possession of the bike from the appellant on the allegation that it is smuggled goods. Whereas the fact of the matter is that motor bike is a non-notified goods and burden to prove that it is smuggled good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been issued on or before 01.06.2013 whereas in the present case the show-cause notice was issued on 30.10.2013 which is beyond the period of limitation. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20256/2015-DB - Final Order No. 20001/ 2016 - Dated:- 2-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri P.A. Augustian, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Mohammed Yusuf, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed again .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Karnataka under Reg. No. KA-01-EM-4433. After negotiation and verifying the documents pertaining to the bike, appellant purchased the same. Thereafter on 05.05.2013, officers from the respondent came to the appellant s house and directed the appellant to produce the motor bike and the documents pertaining to the said vehicle. After verifying the documents the Department alleged illegality in import and the motor bike was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on very same day. The res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Engineer, the value of the bike is assessed as ₹ 4,06,020/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Six Thousand and Twenty only) at the time of import and thereafter a show-cause notice was issued on 30.10.2013. The appellant filed detailed reply to the show-cause notice and raised the objection that the demand of duty after a period of limitation is unsustainable and the detention of the vehicle is totally illegal. He also submitted that there is no provision to demand the duty from a bonafide purchaser who .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and Forty Nine only) with applicable interest and other charges. In addition to that, the respondent also imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Commissioner vide order dated 13.11.2014 rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the motor bike has su .....

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 not under Bill of Entry No. 590451 dated 02.06.2009 as reflected in the documents in possession of the appellant. He further submitted that assuming the motor bike was illegally imported in the year 2008 as alleged in the show-cause notice, then the statutory period to issue a show-cause notice commences on the date of final assessment and the demand of differential duty is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the motor bike is not falling under the category of notified goods and bu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

T. 370 (Bom.) c) CC (Prev) Vs. Aakash Enterprises 2006 (205) E.L.T. 23 (Bom.) d) CC (Prev) Vs. Shri Ganesh Ent. 2006 (199) E.L.T. 208 (Bom.) e) Kishan Rao Choudhary Vs. CC, Excise 2005 (192) E.L.T. 1015 3.1. He further submitted that as per the investigation made by the Department from Mumbai Customs authority, the Bill of Entry of the same No. was filed on 02.06.2008 and the importer was M/s. Sony Enterprises in the said Bill of Entry and they have imported the motor cycle parts including engin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther details either from the importer or from the CHA. The Investigating Officer has not bothered to find out the engine number of the motor bike to tally whether the said bike engine and the present bike are having the same engine number or not. Without proper investigation, the department has proceeded to recover the duty from the appellant who is a bonafide purchaser of the said vehicle. He further submitted that the appellant purchased the vehicle from the registered owner and the vehicle is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

following authorities: a) VXL India Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai (2000 (122) E.L.T. 710 (Tribunal) b) CC Mumbai Vs. VXL India Ltd. 2006 (193) E.L.T. 396 (Bom.) c) CC Mumbai Vs. VXL India Ltd. 2006 (197) E.L.T. A121 (S.C) d) CC Bangalore Vs. Five Star Shipping 2012 (278) E.L.T. 196 (Kar.) e) Nalin Choksey Vs. CC Cochin 2009 (240) E.L.T. 246 3.2. He further submitted that the impugned order is bad in law because the penalty imposed on the appellant is unsustainable since the impugned order has not fulfill .....

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