9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn commission as per letter dated 12-12-1988 – Apart from that letter, there was no evidence worth name against Appellant-1 – Accordingly, no penalty could have been imposed upon Appellant and hereby set aside – Appeal allowed – Decided in favour of Appellant. Demand of Differential Duty – Vide impugned order of CESTAT show cause notice was issued to appellant for demand of differential duty – Held that:- customs authorities invoked provisions of Section 28 and therefore, took benefit of extended period of limitation of five years – As purchaser, appellant was fastened with liability of differential amount of duty and there was no dispute that it was to be paid by appellant as he was owner of car – Thus no merit appeal found – Appeal dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovember, 1989 when it was noticed that the cars were actually of higher engine capacity. It was also noticed that the prices declared in the invoices was lower than the actual purchase price/commercial prices. On this basis, show cause notices were issued against the said importer. The show cause notices were also issued against these two appellants namely, Mr. Atul H. Mehta and Mr. Gerson Da Cunha and the reasons for issuance of notice against these persons shall be recorded at a later stage. After adjudication of the matter, a common order was passed by the Collector confiscating these cars and penalties were also imposed on the said importer as well as the aforesaid appellants. The said importer Mr. S. A. Futehally challenged the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty of ₹ 1 lakh upon Mr. Mehta. The reason given in the impugned order passed by the Collector is that Mr. Mehta conspired with Mr. Futehally leading to making of wrong declaration. We find from the impugned order that the main reason attributed for the alleged conspiracy is that it was done to earn commission. In support of this, one letter dated 12-12-1988 written by M/s. Ashiya Motors to one Mr. Vergese is relied upon in which M/s. Ashiya Motors has stated that they would be paying commission of ₹ 10,000/- to Mr. Vergese. 6. We do not understand as to how such a letter written by M/s Ashiya Motors to Mr. Vergese would rope in Mr. Mehta into the charge of conspiracy. Apart from that letter, there is no evidence worth the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the CESTAT. It is against the order of the CESTAT, the present appeal is preferred. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the show cause notice is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act inasmuch as the car was cleared from the customs on 4-7-1988 and the show cause notice was issued on 21-1-1991, i.e., more than two and a half years thereafter, whereas the normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 28 is one year at that time. 11. We however, find that the customs authorities invoked the provisions of proviso to Section 28 and therefore, took the benefit of extended period of limitation of five years. 12. This is challenged by the appellant stati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
