Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(12)ECC209
1. These four appeals arise out of a common order-in-appeal and involve a common issue for determination. Hence they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the cases may be briefly stated. The appellants imported four consignments of timber from Burma. These were assessed by the customs authorities to auxiliary duty of customs (leviable in terms of the annual Finance Acts) at the rate of 30% ad valorem in terms of Customs Notification No. 126/84 dated 11-5-1984. The appellants cleared the goods on payment of the auxiliary duty so assessed. Later, the appellants were served with notices calling upon them to show cause why an amount of Rs. 3,09,113.30 should not be demanded from them on the ground that auxiliary duty of customs should have been charged at 40% ad valorem and not 30% ad valorem as charged at the time the goods were assessed to duty and allowed clearance. In due course, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay confirmed the demands b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1993)(66)ELT295TriDel
1. Being dissatisfied with the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 33,370.91 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also imposition of penalty of Rs. 500 under Rule 173Q ibid the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Factual backdrop: As a result of visit to the manufacturing premises of the appellants on 3-4-1982 the officer concerned found that the appellant had manufactured corrugated box falling under T.I. 68 without obtaining any Central Excise Licence and had also exported corrugated box to Nepal and Bhutan without payment of Central Excise duty and further without issuing the gate pass or observing the other provisions of law. As a sequence thereof a show cause notice calling upon the appellant to show cause why duty amounting to Rs. 33,370.91 be not demanded on the goods exported to Nepal and Bhutan and penalty be not imposed, was issued. In reply it was contended that the goods manufactured by the appellant have since been classified under T.I. 68, as such ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)(18)LC332Tri(Delhi)
1. The learned Departmental Representative raised a preliminary objection stating that Order-in-Original was passed by Shri K.S.Sivaraman in his capacity as Deputy Collector of Customs and as such, appeal against that order shall lie before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the said order. He, therefore, argued that appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable. The learned advocate for the appellant argued that Shri K.S. Sivaraman passed the impugned order in his capacity as Additional Collector of Customs. He also stated that Shri K.S. Sivaraman was appointed as Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi w.e.f. 8.12.86 vide Gazette Notification in 1/87 dated 10.10.1987. He has, therefore, contended that appeal against the impugned order should lie before this Tribunal and not before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. He has stated that the appeal is maintainable and hence, should be heard and dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(78)ELT794TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30-8-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Delhi. The appellant was posted as First Secretary in the Indian Embassy, Kathman-du. During his stay in Kathmandu he imported a Nissan Datsun Car - Model No. B 310 UGL. After using the car in Nepal for more than five years he brought it to India against a valid Customs Clearance Permit. Bill of Entry No. 010, dated 14-9-1987 was filed in Delhi Customs House for the clearance of the car. Along with the Bill of Entry, the appellant filed Invoice No.M/11993/2-B, dated 3-2-1982 issued by M/s. Nippon Trading Co. Ltd., Japan which indicated the FOB and CIF prices of the imported car as US $ 3,155.20 and US $ 4,013.65 respectively. The appellant had also obtained another invoice from the supplier bearing the same number and date in respect of the imported car which indicated the CIF price as Japanese Yen 1,010,000. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Delhi determined the assessable value of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC631
1. Prior to its amendment on 27.12.1985, Section 11A of the then Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 {now called Central Excises Act, 1944, and hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), provided that for recovery of central excise duty not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid, notice was to be served, on the person chargeable with the central excise duty, which had not been levied or paid or which had been short levied or short paid, by a Central Excise Officer. The power to determine the amount of duty of excise due from such person on whom the notice had been served, was to be exercised by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, A question had arisen whether this power could be exercised by the Collector of Central Excise. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise was an officer subordinate to the Collector of Central Excise. There were a few decisions of the Tribunal wherein it had been held that even though under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Act, Asstt. Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(88)LC93Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi who has confiscated Maruti Car No. DBG-1901 (valued at Rs. 1 lakh) belonging to the appellants, from which computer parts of foreign origin valued at approximately Rs. 11 lakhs were recovered on 25.4.1996, with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on appellant No. 1 and Rs. 3 lakhs on appellant No. 2.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.4.1996, DRI officer searched the residence of one Sushil Kumar Verma at Vivek Vihar, Delhi, but nothing incriminating was recovered therefrom. After the completion of the search, Sushil Verma was interrogated about one white Ambassador car bearing Registration No. RSR-6009, which was found parked in the precincts of his residence and he stated that this car was sent to him on the same day by one Narain Agarwal of Shanti Vihar, Delhi and that the car driven by Vinod Kumar reached his house ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(69)ECC298
1. The appellant was imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow by Order-in-Original dated 12.9.97.The matter relates to the seizure and confiscation of dried ginger recovered from two trucks by the Customs (Prev.) officers on 233.95 on the National Highway between Lucknow and Sitapur. By the impugned order the said ginger valued at Rs. 8,01,040 was confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and personal penalties were imposed on six noticees under Section 112(b). The Commissioner found that the said ginger was liable to confiscation since it was smuggled from Nepal and it was not of Indian or Nepalese origin. The penalty on the present appellant was imposed on the finding that the Export certificate issued at Bhairaw Nepal and the transport builty of Bajrang Transport Corpn.showed that the smuggled goods in question were to be transported to Shri Raj Kumar Gupta (appellant), Khari Baoli, Delhi and statements of Shri Ranjit Singh, cleaner o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(132)ELT312TriDel
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby his Truck No. HR-29/C-6077 was confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the option was given to the appellant to redeem the truck on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.6.98, the officers of Customs apprehended a truck No. HR-29/C-6077 which was parked near Katra forest barrier, Railway Crossing. On search of the truck various cartons (SIC) third country (SIC) were found of the value of Rs. 14,67,800/-. Shri Harender Kumar Singh, Cleaner of the truck was present on the spot could not produce any legal document in respect of the import of the goods. The goods were taken into possession. Shri Harender Kumar Singh, in his statement under Section 108 of Customs act, 1962 submits that the third country origin goods...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(0)ELT0TriDel
1. These appeals are against the order of the Commissioner of customs imposing penalties of Rs. 25,000/- each on the appellants under Section 112(b) of Customs Act. The bare facts necessary fro the disposal of these appeals will be stated below.2. A team of preventive officers of Customs intercepted a 'Maruti Gypsy' at Safedabad on the Barabanki-Lucknow road on 24.12.99. The vehicle had three occupants, namely Raj Kumar Sharma (driver), Shambu Nath (appellant in Appeal No. C/7/2001) and Lal Bahadur (appellant in Appeal No. C/11/2001). The vehicle and its occupants were taken to the office of the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow and the vehicle was searched in the presence of independent witnesses. The search revealed secret cavities on either sides of the rear seats. 101 slabs of what appeared to be raw silver along with ornaments and India currency of Rs. 1,13,500/- were recovered from the secret cavities. The silver was got assessed for its weight and purity on the spot by assayers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(86)ECC478
1. On 9.5.99, the respondent was intercepted at the Customs Barrier at Nepalganj Road on his way from Nepal to India, by officers of the Customs. 41 Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500 were recovered alongwith currency notes of lower denomination from his person and the same were seized by the officers believing that the currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500 were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. After recording a statement of the respondent under Section 107 of the Customs Act, the department booked a case against him and accordingly issued a show-cause notice to him for confiscating the currency notes and imposing penalty on him.The original authority ordered absolute confiscation of the seized goods worth Rs. 20,500 (Rs. 500 x 41) and imposed on the appellant a personal penalty of Rs. 500 under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appeal preferred by the party against the order of the original authority was allowed by the Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!