Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2004 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (2) TMI 79 - HC - Customs

Issues:
- Confirmation of order by CEGAT without deciding the issues
- Violation of conditions under Duty Exemption Scheme
- Failure to consider important documents by Tribunal
- Alleged violation of conditions VI & VII of Notification No. 204/92
- Impact of certificate issued by Licensing authority in 2001 on findings
- Delay in delivering judgment by Tribunal

Analysis:

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay considered the petitions challenging the common order passed by the CEGAT, Mumbai, and the basic issue was whether the CEGAT was justified in confirming the Commissioner of Customs' order without deciding the raised issues. The petitioners were granted Quantity Based Advance Licenses under the Duty Exemption Scheme, allowing duty-free imports subject to specific conditions. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1.17 crores due to alleged violations of the scheme by the petitioners, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. The Tribunal upheld this order, prompting the petitions.

The petitioners argued that the Tribunal's order suffered from serious flaws, including a delay in the judgment, omitting crucial documents, and overlooking certification of export obligation fulfillment. The respondents contended that the petitioners violated the scheme conditions, justifying the authorities' actions. The Court noted the conflicting arguments regarding the alleged violations of conditions VI & VII of Notification No. 204/92 and the impact of the 2001 certification on the Commissioner's findings.

Citing the Apex Court's precedent, the Court emphasized the Tribunal's duty to provide detailed discussions on facts and issues raised. It found that the Tribunal failed to address crucial issues and material facts adequately, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back for rehearing within three months. Both petitions were allowed with no costs awarded, keeping all contentions open for further consideration.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates