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

2010 (10) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal ought to have used its common sense that a person working as carpenter/labourer in Dubai could not have owned or imported vehicle, that too from Japan, especially, in the light of his statement recorded under section 108 of the Act; wherein he has clearly admitted that his passport was misused by someone. It was clearly an attempt on the part of the Tribunal to adopt perverse approach. - Question of law framed is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee - 7 OF 2005 - - - Dated:- 6-10-2010 - V.C.DAGA , R.M.SAVANT, JJ. JUDGMENT : (Per V.C.Daga, J.) This appeal, filed by the appellantRevenue under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("Act" for short) against the order dated 7th July, 2004 passed by the Cus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ries of importers: (a) Individuals coming to India for permanent settlement after two years; continuous stay abroad; (b) - (i) ..... ..... .....3. ..... ..... ..... ..... 4. ..... ..... ..... ....." 3. On verification of the documents along with bill of entry, the Customs found that initial registration of the vehicle was in the month of November, 1996; whereas cancellation thereof was on 14th November, 2000 by Kanto Transportation Bureau, Japan. The Customs, finding import of the car contrary to the public notice dated 31st March, 2000, recorded statement of the respondent under section 108 of the Act on 24th April, 2001; wherein the respondent, inter alia ; stated that he was from Andhra Pradesh holding Indian Passport No.T950743 issue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... section 111(o) of the Act for violation of the condition of postimportation. That is how the vehicle was absolutely confiscated and the penalty of Rs.25,000/was imposed on the respondent and Rs.50,000/on one Sujit Sattam, CHA under section 112(a) of the Act. 5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid orderinoriginal, appeal was preferred by the respondent. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), vide his order dated 16th March, 2004, rejected the appeal and confirmed the orderinoriginal. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orderinappeal, the respondent filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 7th July, 2004, was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the orderinappeal holding that it was neither necessary for the resp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... broad. Such person is entitled to import only one vehicle with NO SALE condition of two years to be endorsed by the Customs Authorities on the passport/registration documents at the time of import and by the Regional Transport Authorities when such vehicle is presented for registration in India. 11. The aforesaid condition that no person shall be entitled to sell the vehicle imported while coming to India for permanent settlement after two years continuous stay abroad is pregnant with the condition that such person must be a owner or title holder of the vehicle. The right to sell vehicle after expiry of two years contemplates transfer of title arising from the transaction of sale and purchase. Transfer of title can only be done by a perso .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as a Carpenter on labour visa." 12. The aforesaid well considered findings were sought to be set aside by the Tribunal holding that it was not necessary for the importer to prove his ownership or title to the vehicle during his stay abroad and that he need not be the owner of the vehicle for next two years after importation thereof during is stay in India. The view taken by the Tribunal is absolutely perverse. The Tribunal could not have taken such a perverse view running contrary to the public policy leading to the issuance of the public notice. 13. The order of the Tribunal also suffers from nonapplication of mind since the Tribunal has directed release of vehicle after collection of duty assessed thereon forgetting the fact that as p .....

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