R.N. Mallick Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....car was bad. smt. c.g. lal, learned sdr, who is present on behalf of the respondent pleaded that lower authorities had rightly allowed depreciation at 55% but keeping in view the that the car is of 1983 model and 91/2 years old and in view of the circular by the learned advocate, she leaves it to the discretion of the bench.2. we have heard both sides and have gone through the facts and [circumstances of the case. it is an admitted fact that the car was of 1983 model i and; was 9 1/2 years old at the time of its importation.the assistant collector i had allowed depreciation at the rate of 46% + 7% and the collector (appeals) had allowed 2%. the age of the car is not disputed and the ad-hoc depreciation was allowed after the actual inspection of the car. to meet the ends of justice, j we are of the view that ends of the justice will be met if a further depreciation 10% (thus total depreciation 65%) is allowed. in the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

Judgment:

1. Dr. Rajinder Nath Mallick, 192-C, Sainik Farms, New Delhi 110062 has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, (Appeals), New Delhi. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant, Learned Advocate pleaded that the appellant had imported 1983 model and time of import was 91/2 years old. He pleaded that the car being very old was in a very bad shape.

The Assistant Collector had allowed the depreciation at s rate of 46% plus an ad-hoc depreciation. Shri Anand further argued that the appellant being not satisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Collector ad challenged the same before the Collector (Appeals) and Collector (Appeals) had allowed further depreciation of 2%. He pleaded that the appellant's car is 1983 model. Shri Anand referred to Vadodara Collectorate F. No. VIII/1-1/Cus./T/93, dated 15-6-1993. He pleaded that as per Board's circular, the Depreciation was allowed at 70%. The said circular is reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. (T10). Shri Anand pleaded that this is the latest circular in which there is mention of earlier circular and maximum depreciation of 70% could be lowed. He pleaded that the appellant will face hardship if the total depreciation at 70% is not allowed, as the condition of the car was bad. Smt. C.G. Lal, learned SDR, who is present on behalf of the respondent pleaded that lower authorities had rightly allowed depreciation at 55% but keeping in view the that the car is of 1983 model and 91/2 years old and in view of the circular by the learned Advocate, she leaves it to the discretion of the Bench.

2. We have heard both sides and have gone through the facts and [circumstances of the case. It is an admitted fact that the car was of 1983 model I and; was 9 1/2 years old at the time of its importation.

The Assistant Collector I had allowed depreciation at the rate of 46% + 7% and the Collector (Appeals) had allowed 2%. The age of the car is not disputed and the ad-hoc depreciation was allowed after the actual inspection of the car. To meet the ends of justice, j we are of the view that ends of the justice will be met if a further depreciation 10% (thus total depreciation 65%) is allowed. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.