TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produce evidence that the goods were illegally imported and not the person from whose possession such goods are seized. No doubt the Department has produced evidence in the present case that the said vehicle was imported under a forged Bill of Entry but the Department has not been able to establish that the appellant has forged the Bill of Entry in the name of Ganapathi Raman. The proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle after the limitation is unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal (s) Involved: C/21746/2016-SM; C/20092/2017 - Final Order No. 20315-20316/2018 - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - MR. SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri P. A. Augustian, Adv, For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement, the appellant has submitted that bike was purchased by him and the same was registered in the year 2008 and that he is bona fide buyer of the said bike which he purchased after verifying the documents pertaining to the bike and thereafter the Department seized the bike on 16/04/2015. Against which the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon ble High Court issued certain directions to the Department for issuing the I hereafter show-cause notice was receive y e p demand duty but without any valuation and no specific demand as per the notice. The appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice raising various objections regarding the jurisdiction and also demanded cross-examination of the importer of the goods. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show-cause notice, the import was carried out through Calcutta Port and the vehicle was registered in Mumbai and therefore the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. He further submitted that as per the documents handed over to the Revenue, the said motor vehicle was initially registered with the Registration authority in the year 2008 and even if it is assumed that there is illegal import, then as per Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, the extended period of limitation in such cases is 5 years and the said period expired in the year 2013 and the entire proceedings is beyond limitation. He also submitted that his request for cross-examination of the importer Shri Ganapathi Raman was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed it. He also submitted that the case relied upon by the appellant is not applicable. 5. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, I find that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle was imported in 2008 and it was seized from the appellant in the year 2014. Therefore as per Section 28 of the Customs Act, the period within which the duty can be demanded is 5 years which has expired in the year 2013. Therefore in my view, the demand proceeding against the appellant is not sustainable in law. Further I find that the appellate authority has also dropped the demand of duty by considering the Section 28 of the Customs Act and it is also a fact that the duty has been demanded without ascertaining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that when duties cannot be imposed due to limitation procedure, no order imposing penalty can be sustained. Therefore, in my view, the proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle after the limitation is unsustainable. Further in the case of Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa [1978(2) ELT J159(SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that penalty can only be levied in cases where the assessee has acted 'deliberately in defiance of law' or is 'guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest' or 'acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty need not be imposed when there is a technical breach of the provisions or where breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
