TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Shri P.A. Augustian, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - The following twelve appeals have been filed by the Revenue and party. Cross-objections have also been filed by the respondents. The details of appeals and cross-appeals are given in the following tabular column: Sl. No. Appeal No. Name of the Parties Impugned Order No. Dt. Amount involved 1. 1.C/35/2008 Mr. Narayan Nambiar Meloth v. CC, Cochin O-I-A No. 481/2007 dt. 15-10-2007 by CC (A), Cochin RF of Rs. 1,00,000/- Penalty of Rs.50,000/- 2. 1. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e' condition quashed 8. C/751/2007 C/CO/85/2007 CC, Cochin v. Shri Mohammed Shaheed OIA No.478/2007 dt. 28-9-2007 by CC (A), Cochin RF: Rs. 1,00,000/- Penalty: Rs. 50,000/- 'No sale' condition quashed 9. C/752/2007 C/CO/86/2008 CC, Cochin v. Shri Narayanan Nambiar Meloth O-I-A No. 481/2007 dt.15-10-2007 by CC (A), Cochin -do- 10. C/753/2007 C/C0/89/2008 CC, Cochin v. Shr John Mammen OIA No. 486/2007 dt. 25-10-2007 by CC (A), Cochin RF: Rs. 50,000/- Penalty Rs 25 000/- 11. C/754/2007 C/CO/90/2008 CC, Cochin v. Shri Gereria Prakash Phahilajrai OIA No. 488/2007 dt. 25-10-2007 by CC (A), Cochin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In some of the cases, the value declared by the respondents have not been accepted by the Customs Department. The respondents aggrieved over the orders of the Original Authority, approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the imposition of fine and penalty had stated in his order that the 'no sale condition after import is waived as the TR facility is not allowed.' This observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) is strongly challenged by the Revenue. 5. The learned Departmental Representative Shri Sambi Reddy invited our attention to the following provisions in the policy: (3) (1) The conditions at Sl. Nos. 1 2 above shall not be applicable on import of pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rols (applicable on vehicles other than two and three wheelers). II. All the above categories shall be entitled to import only one vehicle except categories (e) and (f), which shall be entitled to import maximum of three vehicles. Persons in category (d) shall be entitled to import only specially designed vehicles suitable for use by handicapped. All such imports shall carry a "NO SALE" condition of two years which shall be endorsed by the Customs authorities on the passport/registration documents at the time of import and by the Regional Transport Authorities when such vehicles are presented for registration in India. The DGFT may, however, permit relaxation of these conditions or imports by any other category not listed above in special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector of Customs v. Tara, Art Printers - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 586 upheld by the Apex Court 1997 (91) E.L.T. A88. 8. On a careful consideration, we are of the view that when the transaction value is available and the circumstances mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules are absent. Transaction value cannot be rejected in the light of the Eicher case. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the ratio of the Eicher case. Hence, we reject Revenue's contention on this point. Therefore, as far as the question of refurbishing charges is concerned, the following Revenue's appeals are dismissed. C/753/2007, C/478/2007, C/749/2007, C/75072007, C/751/2007, C/752/2007 C/754/2007 9. In respect of Appeal No. C/272/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant Shri Narayana Nambiar Meloth challenges the imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and redemption fine of Rs 1,00,000/-. The appellant actually imported a car with right hand drive. Records revealed that the car was not in his possession for a period of one year. Hence, violation of the policy is clearly established. But, the contention of the appellant is that in a place like Dubai where right hand drive car is not permitted, he could not have possessed such a car for a period of one year. For the above reason, just before coming to India he had purchased the right hand drive car so that he won't violate Indian laws. He also quotes a Latin maxim which means that the law does not asks one to do impossible things. This argument, at best ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
