9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2 lakhs. There was no detailed order issued to parties and the case was relisted for hearing for reasons which will be explained later. After rehearing, the appeal was disposed by Final Order Nos. 564 to 566/2011 dated 10.5.2011 and the Tribunal vide such order reduced the penalty from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 6 lakhs. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court and the matter has been remanded with the following directions:- "10. In such view of the matter, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal to verify and record as to whether the earlier order is supported by reasons and if so, has it been withdrawn for any reason. The Tribunal after recording reasons as above is entitled to dispose of the appeal appropriately." 3. Thus, it is seen that the High Court on appeal by the appellant herein, has set aside the second order (imposing a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs) and has remanded the matter to the Tribunal to look into and verify and record whether the first order is supported by reasons and if so, whether it has been withdrawn. We therefore first proceed to verify and record as to whether the first order is a speaking order/suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Member (Judicial) by the SPS, we do not find any such order as part of the records. We are not able to say whether the said order was signed or approved by any Member. Thus, we conclude that the first docket order is not supported by any reasons and therefore is withdrawn. 6. Having concluded that the first docket order is not supported by reasons and withdrawn, and the Hon'ble High Court having set aside the second order, in our view, we have to rehear the appeal on merits. The case presents a peculiar situation which needs to be resolved to give finality to the litigation, we therefore are of the considered opinion that the appeal filed by appellant Shri Haren Choksey having been remanded, has to be heard on merits. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant states that he is not ready with the matter to argue on merits and requested time. The case is thus adjourned to 27.7.2017 for hearing on merits as last and final chance. This interim order shall be part of the final order." 2. On 18.7.2017, the learned Senior Advocate had sought adjournment to argue the merits of the case and the case was adjourned to 27.7.2017. On this day, when the case was taken up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound using the vehicle so far in the name'. Learned counsel contends that such a statement is in contradiction with the findings made by the adjudicating authority earlier in the impugned order in respect of the importer. It is not the case that the importer does not exist. 4.2 Learned counsel further contends that the role of Shri Haren Choksey is limited to only that of a broker among other car brokers in arranging mortgage of the vehicle. 4.3 Learned counsel draw the attention to para 29.1 of the impugned order wherein the provisions of the Public Notice 3(RE-2000) 97-2002 dated 31.3.2000 as well as para 29.2 relating to importing licensing goods of Chapter 87 of ITC (HS) have been reproduced. He submits that one of the conditions attached to such imports is that no sale condition of two years'. However, the transaction between the importer and Shri Namit Malhotra is only a mortgage deed and the same cannot be construed as sale. A sale should be in consonance with the provisions of Sale of Goods Act. There also has to be change in registration to effect the same. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR Shri B. Balamurugan supports the adjudication and submits that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Haren Choksey has found involved in every step of the alleged sale and registration of the vehicle after this import. He has also took on the responsibilities of opening accounts, putting the cheques in an account opened in the name of Shri Saleem Mohammed and encashed the proceedings thereafter. It is also admitted that out of the encashed amount, part was spent on registration and insurance and also covered his own commission and the commission of Shri Sanjay Turakhia. In the circumstances, notwithstanding many protestations of the learned counsel, the actual role of Shri Haren Choksey in aiding and abetting the importer and the purchaser in the entire modus operandi is stalk and not merely only involving services of a broker. 7.4 Learned counsel has also argued that there was no actual sale involved and that only a mortgage. He has even contended that the transaction that has occurred cannot be called a sale as per Sale of Goods Act. 7.5 In this regard, we find that as per Sale of Goods Act, 1930, 'sale of goods' is defined as "contract of sale whereby the seller transfer or agrees or transfer the property in for a price'. Even as per the Cambridge Dictionary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
