9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: M V Ravindran: These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No: 87 & 89/2005/CAC/CC/PK dated 30/09/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai. As both the appeals are raising a common question of law they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njay Ghodawat the appellant. He was directed only to show cause as to why the impugned care should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. There is no proposal in the show cause notice to impose any penalty on the appellant for violation of Section 111(d) and 111 (rn) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.2. The Order-in-Original dated 30/09/2005, however, imposes redem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act, 1962 for demanding duty from a person other than importer is not proper since Section 125(2) not being a substitute for provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the decision of VXL India Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 710 (Tribunal), it is held that the provisions of Section 125(2) have been introduced in order to recover duty on goods w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Bangalore v. Five Star Shipping Co. Ltd 2012 (278) ELT 196 (Kar.). Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that a bonafide purchaser of a car which is cleared by Customs Department is not liable to pay redemption fine even if the car is undervalued and that the original importer is liable to pay differential duty under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. While delivering the said judgment the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
