9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Revenue appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Confiscation of goods, redemption fine, penalty, duty demand. Confiscation of Goods and Duty Demand: The case involved a Revenue appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the confiscation of goods and the demand for duty. The Assistant Commissioner had ordered the confiscation of goods seized from the respondents' premises, allowing redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty. The Revenue sought modification to include a demand for duty on the seized goods. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that as the market value at the time of seizure already included taxes payable, there was no need to demand duty on the market value of the goods. The Tribunal reiterated this reasoning and found no fault in the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard. Show Cause Notice and Proceedings: The show cause notice issued to the respondents only contained proposals for confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and for a penalty. There was no proposal demanding duty from the respondents. As a result, the adjudicating authority could not have demanded any duty since the proceedings were limited to determining confiscation and penalty. Therefore, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) were found to be in order, confirming the order-in-original. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's appeal had no merit and thus rejected it. In summary, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the confiscation of goods and the decision not to demand duty on the seized goods. The absence of a proposal for duty demand in the show cause notice limited the proceedings to confiscation and penalty, justifying the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.
|
