GST Helpdesk   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
GST - Acts SGST - Acts GST - FAQ GST Rates, Exemption CGST Notif. SGST Notif. Exempt Income Salary income
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (2) TMI 607 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2017 (2) TMI 607 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Confiscation - penalty - undervaluation - import of brand new car of Chrysler 300C 3.0CRD V6 Saloon SRT - car in dispute was manufactured in Austria but was imported from the United Kingdom - Held that: - On the official website of the car manufacturer, the value of the identical model was shown as 32505 British Pound. Thus, it is evident that the car was imported by producing the Bill of Entry of under-valuation - the Department has taken the price of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e-Appellant against the order-in-original no. 23/2016 dated 24.02.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi. 2. It is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal as earlier the Tribunal vide its Final Order No. C/A/56256-56258/2013 dated 02.05.2013 has remanded the matter- for denovo proceedings. In the second round of litigation, the Department has again confirmed the demand. Being aggrieved, the assessee-Appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. The brie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

manufactured in Austria but was imported from the United Kingdom. Since the car was imported in contravention of the conditions specified in the Import Policy of the Government of India, the same was liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the assessee-Appellant was also held liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. During the course of arguments, Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee-Appellant, submits that the assessee- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

552/- in terms of Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules and demanded the differential duty amounting to ₹ 16,70,083/- under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 with interest and levied the penalty too. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee-Appellant that the adjudicating authority did not issue any show cause notice to the assessee-Appellant as per the directions of the Tribunal. The adjudicating authority did not consider the written submissions and decided the issue .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC); (ii) Valdilal Dairy International Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, 2005 (180) ELT 436 (SC); (iii) Tolin Rubers Pvt. Ltd. Vs commissioner of Customs, Cochin, 2004 (163) ELT 289 (SC); (iv) Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs South Indian Television (P) Ltd., 2007 (214) ELT 3 (SC); and (v) Commissioner of Customs Vs JD Orgochem Ltd., 2008 (226) ELT 9(SC) On the other hand, Shri Govind Dixit, learned DR for the Department, relied upon 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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