9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 33,36,786 paid by M/s Rajat Pharmachem Ltd, and accepted as 'settlement' in accordance with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, by lawfully constituted authority for such, on imports effected by the appellant and penalties imposed under section 114 A of Customs Act, 1962, the issue for determination is the applicability of these two provisions of Customs Act, 1962 when duty liability has been fastened on the transferor of tradeable scrip. 2. Appellant imported goods against bills of entry no. 685204/28.01.08, no. 685193/28.01.08, no. 717429/20.02.08, no. 779470/08.04.08, no. 704804/11.02.08, no. 836527/25.04.08, no. 822714/08.02.08, no. 831615/29.03.08, no. 675959/18.01.08, no. 067/11.0 2.08, no. 070/16.02.08 and no. 072/20.02.08 at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice supra by reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Customs v. Jupiter Exports & others [2007 ECR 395 Bombay] which confirmed that the opinion of the Tribunal that recovery could be affected only from 'importer', as defined in section 2 of Customs Act, 1962, and not from any other person because 'demand for duty can be based on law and not on equity or moral considerations'. 4. In that decision, the Hon'ble High Court was concerned with an appeal of Revenue against the finding of the Tribunal that the adjudicating authority had erred in fastening the liability for recovery of duty foregone on imports made by transferees of licenses, made eligible for such transfer by marking up the quantity of exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de us from deciding on the legal position for the very first time since issue of show cause notice, that the relevant submissions of Learned Counsel and Learned Authorised Representative have been considered by us in these proceedings. 6. According to Learned Counsel, in order no. A/2919-2994/15/CB dated 31 August 2015, the Tribunal had, inter alia, considered the appeal of M/s Indorama Synthetics (I) Pvt Ltd, one of the transferees, against the detriment visited upon them in the very same order now impugned before us. The discharge of the detriments by that order is cited as binding for closure of the present proceedings. It was also pointed out that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Coromand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
