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

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (4) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... there. Miss Praveen Bala, an operator of the photostat machine informed the officers that she was working there as an operator on a salary of Rs. 200/- P.M. and that she had no documents relating to the photostat machine in her possession. She, however, informed that it belonged to Prem Rattan, one of the appellants herein, C/o Prince Photo Studio, Court Road, Moga. The officers sent a message for Shri Prem Rattan and had waited for nearly two hours but he did not turn up. They seized the photostat machine on the reasonable belief that being of foreign origin and there being no document for licit purchase or possession of the machine it was liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. Statement of Miss Praveen Bala was also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Tayal and a partnership deed between Shri Shadi Lal and Shri Prem Rattan was executed. This deed was, however, cancelled and he left the job of operating the machine as already stated. On 15-1-1987 Shri Prem Rattan was called by Shri Shadi Lal in his presence and was asked to produce documents relating to the photostat machine for which he expressed his inability since Shri Rajeshwar Singh had not given him any document. Shri Shadi Lal, therefore, asked Shri Prem Rattan to pay back his amount invested in the job and he was not interested to carry on such business and Prem Rattan promised to pay the whole amount (Rs. 34,500/-) within three months. 2.4. Shri Rajeshwar Singh, however, in his statement denied any connection with sale of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 00/- each. The other noticees Shri Rajeshwar Singh and Chander Parkash have not been found guilty. 3. Shri G.S. Bhangoo, the Ld. advocate for both the appellants has urged that the findings of the adjudicating authority are against the story of the department, as set out above, in the show cause notice. It had been alleged, in short, that Shri Rajeshwar Singh had brought the photostat machine illegally from abroad and then sold it to both the appellants without any documents of sale by letting off Shri Rajeshwar Singh. The adjudicating authority s finding belies the allegations set out in the show cause notice. In these circumstances, he submits that the department has not been able to prove the illicit import of the photostat machine. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e is no evidence to that effect that the appellants had any knowledge regarding the illegal character of the said machine. Penalty, therefore, in any view of the matter, according to the Ld. advocate, is not liable to be imposed on the appellants. 4. Learned SDR Smt. Dolly Saxena reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. She submits that the onus shifts on Prem Rattan once the goods are found to be of foreign origin. Even assuming the machine to have been imported under baggage still duty would require to be paid on the said machine inasmuch as it could not be covered within the free allowance available to a passenger under the Baggage Rules. No evidence regarding payment of duty on the machine has been produced by Prem Ratta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1. It is also apparent from the overall evidence on record that Shri Prem Rattan was impliedly in the knowledge that the said machine was illegally imported inasmuch as he could not get any documents of sale and legal importation, on his own admission, from Shri Rajeshwar Singh. He is, therefore, concerned in dealing with the goods liable to confiscation and as such is liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. However, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed on him is rather too high. I reduce the penalty from Rs.12000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) imposed on Shri Prem Rattan. 4.2. As regards the penalty imposed on Shri Shadi Lal, the other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates