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 + AT Customs - 2004 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (4) TMI 246 - AT - Customs


Issues Involved:

1. Denial of benefit of exemption notifications.
2. Liability to pay interest.
3. Liability for confiscation and penalty.
4. Penalty on associated company.

Summary:

1. Denial of Benefit of Exemption Notifications:
The Commissioner denied the benefit of Notification Nos. 56/98 and 22/99 and confirmed the Special Additional Duty (SAD) amounting to Rs. 4,88,04,606/- for the period from 18-9-98 to 30-6-98 on imports of photographic jumbo rolls by CPFL. The Commissioner found that the goods imported in the name of CPFL were not eligible for exemption from SAD and concluded that CPFL and JPFL conspired to evade duty by routing imports through CPFL. The Commissioner invoked the principle of "lifting of corporate veil" to determine that JPFL was the real importer and held that the sale of jumbo rolls by CPFL to JPFL was a pre-determined transaction akin to a High Sea Sale, thus not qualifying for exemption.

2. Liability to Pay Interest:
The Commissioner held that CPFL was liable to pay interest at 24% on the duty amount in terms of Section 28AB of the Customs Act.

3. Liability for Confiscation and Penalty:
The imported goods were held liable for confiscation u/s 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, although they were not available for confiscation. Consequently, CPFL was penalized Rs. 4,88,04,606/- u/s 114A of the Customs Act.

4. Penalty on Associated Company:
JPFL was held liable for a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act for being associated directly and being the ultimate beneficiaries.

Judgment:
The Tribunal examined the nature of transactions and found that CPFL lawfully imported the goods and sold them to JPFL. The Tribunal held that the sale of imported goods by CPFL to JPFL was not a High Sea Sale and that the goods were chargeable to tax under the DNH Sales Tax Regulations, 1978. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were eligible for the benefit of 'Nil' rate of SAD under the relevant notifications. Consequently, the demand of SAD, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties on CPFL and JPFL were set aside. The appeals were allowed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates