Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (6) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... complied with the earlier order in its letter and spirit. This Court had clearly and categorically directed the petitioner to submit all documents which they rely upon and it was for this reason, the impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted back. The first respondent was directed to pass orders within a period of three months. The petitioner was given the concession of relying on any document and collateral as evidence available with them and the first respondent was directed to pass orders after perusing the same and by applying the principles of preponderance of probability. However, the petitioner has not complied with the said direction. Further, the petitioner has an appellate remedy which he has not availed. A readin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... titioner would submit that in the course of business, they have filed nine bill of entries on various dates for clearances of goods described as used rubber tyre cut in two pieces for the tune of Rs.48,91,401/- which involves duty amount of Rs.15,15,359/-. The products have been imported from United States. The petitioner would submit that there is a restriction in the import of used tyres except those which have a cut in the bead wire. The officers of the SIIB, Tuticorin Customs was of the opinion that the goods in question did not have the one cut in the bead wire and they therefore, seized the goods. Statement was thereafter recorded from the Proprietor of the petitioner concern and also from the Customs Broker whereby, complete mutila .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er, without granting request for cross examination, the first respondent adjudicated all the eight show cause notices, passed orders in O.A.Nos.5 to 11 of 2021 dated 29.06.2021 and imposed penalty asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,08,27,985/-. The petitioner, thereafter filed W.P.(MD) Nos.13225 and 13226 of 2021 before this Court once again that they were not permitted to cross examine the mahazar witness. By order dated 11.04.2022, the matter was remitted back to the respondents for de novo consideration. The petitioner by letter dated 15.05.2022, requested the Commissioner to direct the first respondent to fix a personal hearing. Eight months from the date of the order in W.P.(MD) Nos.13225 and 13226 of 2021, the second respond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ervation of this Court in the earlier round of litigation viz., W.P.(MD) Nos.13225 and 13226 of 2021, wherein this Court had observed as follows: 16. In this case, the import is from the United States of America. It is not clear why the import has been made through Tuticorin Port, in the tip of the Peninsula in the Bay of Bengal. If the petitioner's case is that the import was made for their factory in Rajasthan, the petitioner would have chosen other Ports, which are nearer to Rajasthan either in Gujaraj or in Maharashtra or in Goa or in Kerala on the Western Coasts. This needs to be properly explained by the petitioner. If the petitioner indeed operates a factory in Rajasthan, it is open for the petitioner to file a copy of the G .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y applying the principles of preponderance of probability. However, the petitioner has not complied with the said direction. Further, the petitioner has an appellate remedy which he has not availed. A reading of the impugned order would clearly set out the fact that the petitioner has not filed a copy of the GST registration certificate at Rajasthan and though the first respondent has called upon the petitioner to produce the documents to substantiate their case, the petitioner has not cared to supply the details. The impugned order can be appealed before the Commissioner of Appeals within a period of 60 days. Considering the fact that this period has come to an end, the time taken in prosecuting this writ petition shall be waived and shall .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates