Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

M/S. SkytraIn Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

M/S. SkytraIn Services vs Commissioner of Customs, New

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 29, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/21849

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S. SkytraIn Services

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, New

Excerpt

1. the applicants filed this application for waiver of penalty of rs. 1 lakh under section 114 of the customs act, 1962. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that applicants are custom house agent. the applicants filed shipping bills on behalf of m/s. bless overseas for export of accupressure shoe liners. the applicants filed the shipping bills and declared the goods in the shipping bill as per information supplied by the expoerter. learned counsel submits that there is no evidence on record to show that applicants ever connived with the exporter to declare higher value of the goods with intent to avail excess depb benefits. he submits that the collector of customs in the impugned order, without any evidence, held that appellants the customers in an attempt to export over-invoiced goods availing excess depb credit. he, therefore, prays that the application be allowed. learned departmental representative appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that m/s. bless overseas over invoice their export goods with intent to avail excess depb benefits. he relies upon the statement of shri rakesh dwivedi, prop. of m/s. bless overseas. when he admitted that he, alongwith dhiraj gupta of m/s. dhiraj plastics, entered into an agreement to avail the excess depb benefits and the same would be shared between them.3. in the impugned order the commissioner gave a finding that appellants abetted the exporter to export over-invoiced goods for claiming higher depb credit. the revenue is relying upon the statement of proprietor of m/s. bless overseas. in his statement, he nowhere mentioned that the applicants are also involved in getting higher credit. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is a fit case for waiver of penalty. therefore, pre-deposit of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. registry is directed to list the appeal on 17.5.2001.

Full Judgment

1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that applicants are Custom House Agent. The applicants filed Shipping Bills on behalf of M/s. Bless Overseas for export of Accupressure Shoe Liners. The applicants filed the Shipping Bills and declared the goods in the Shipping Bill as per information supplied by the expoerter. Learned Counsel submits that there is no evidence on record to show that applicants ever connived with the exporter to declare higher value of the goods with intent to avail excess DEPB benefits. he submits that the Collector of Customs in the impugned order, without any evidence, held that appellants the customers in an attempt to export over-invoiced goods availing excess DEPB credit. He, therefore, prays that the application be allowed. Learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that M/s. Bless Overseas over invoice their export goods with intent to avail excess DEPB benefits. He relies upon the statement of Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Prop. of M/s. Bless Overseas. When he admitted that he, alongwith Dhiraj Gupta of M/s. Dhiraj Plastics, entered into an agreement to avail the excess DEPB benefits and the same would be shared between them.

3. In the impugned order the Commissioner gave a finding that appellants abetted the exporter to export over-invoiced goods for claiming higher DEPB credit. The Revenue is relying upon the statement of proprietor of M/s. Bless Overseas. In his statement, he nowhere mentioned that the applicants are also involved in getting higher credit. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is a fit case for waiver of penalty. Therefore, pre-deposit of penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. Registry is directed to list the appeal on 17.5.2001.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial