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.

Sanjeev Kedia Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Sanjeev Kedia vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 22, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28568

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 Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sanjeev Kedia

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)(146)ELT197Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. for reasons recorded below we waive pre-deposit of the penalty of rs. 5 lakhs imposed upon the applicant who is the director of m/s. jai bhagawati impex pvt. ltd. and m/s. wescon exports pvt. ltd., and proceed to take up the appeal itself for hearing with the consent of both sides.2. the case of the department is that m/s. jai bhagawati impex pvt.ltd., and m/s. wescon exports pvt. ltd., imported marble in blocks and slabs in huge quantities from italy and deliberately did not clear the same for long period after their importation with the intention of cornering the goods through auction at a much reduced price of uncleared cargo. the commissioner has absolutely confiscated the goods imported by these two companies and imposed a penalty upon the common director of both companies.3. the appellant does not challenge the confiscation but submits that in the absence of any notice to the importers, namely, the two companies of which he is the director, no penalty can be imposed upon him in his capacity only as director.4. the learned dr reiterates the findings of the commissioner in the impugned order.5. we have carefully considered the rival submissions. we see great force in the appellant's contention that in the absence of any action taken against the two companies, who have been found to be the importers of the goods ultimately confiscated, no penalty can be imposed upon him. we, therefore, set aside the penalty as unsustainable and allow the appeal in so far it relates to imposition of penalty upon the appellant.

Full Judgment

1. For reasons recorded below we waive pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed upon the applicant who is the Director of M/s. Jai Bhagawati Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Wescon Exports Pvt. Ltd., and proceed to take up the appeal itself for hearing with the consent of both sides.

2. The case of the department is that M/s. Jai Bhagawati Impex Pvt.

Ltd., and M/s. Wescon Exports Pvt. Ltd., imported marble in blocks and slabs in huge quantities from Italy and deliberately did not clear the same for long period after their importation with the intention of cornering the goods through auction at a much reduced price of uncleared cargo. The Commissioner has absolutely confiscated the goods imported by these two companies and imposed a penalty upon the common Director of both companies.

3. The appellant does not challenge the confiscation but submits that in the absence of any notice to the importers, namely, the two companies of which he is the Director, no penalty can be imposed upon him in his capacity only as Director.

4. The learned DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order.

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We see great force in the appellant's contention that in the absence of any action taken against the two companies, who have been found to be the importers of the goods ultimately confiscated, no penalty can be imposed upon him. We, therefore, set aside the penalty as unsustainable and allow the appeal in so far it relates to imposition of penalty upon the appellant.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial