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

2017 (1) TMI 749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ow-cause notice to the registered owner of the vehicle from whom the appellant has purchased the same by paying a consideration and without having any knowledge of the defective title of the seller. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the Department can only issue show-cause notice within a period of 5 years and which means the show-cause notice should have been issued on or before 01.06.2013 whereas in the present case the show-cause notice was issued on 30.10.2013 which is beyond the period of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20256/2015-DB - Final Order No. 20001/ 2016 - Dated:- 2-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri P.A. Augustian, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... egality, respondent took up the matter with the Chartered Engineer to find out the value of the motor bike. Based on the report of the Chartered Engineer, the value of the bike is assessed as ₹ 4,06,020/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Six Thousand and Twenty only) at the time of import and thereafter a show-cause notice was issued on 30.10.2013. The appellant filed detailed reply to the show-cause notice and raised the objection that the demand of duty after a period of limitation is unsustainable and the detention of the vehicle is totally illegal. He also submitted that there is no provision to demand the duty from a bonafide purchaser who had purchased the vehicle after confirming the details from the registration authority. In support of thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant. He further submitted that assuming the motor bike was illegally imported in the year 2008 as alleged in the show-cause notice, then the statutory period to issue a show-cause notice commences on the date of final assessment and the demand of differential duty is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the motor bike is not falling under the category of notified goods and burden to establish that its illegal importation is on the department. He further submitted that the law is well settled that in the case of non-notified goods, burden is on the Department to produce evidence that goods were illegally imported and not the person from whose possession such goods are seized. In support of this submission, the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uty from the appellant who is a bonafide purchaser of the said vehicle. He further submitted that the appellant purchased the vehicle from the registered owner and the vehicle is properly registered by the registration authority in Bangalore and its registered owner was Syed Azeem and his address and other particulars are known to the authority, they should have made him a party in the proceedings and issued him a show-cause notice but the same was not done. He further submitted that non joinder of the owner of the vehicle whose name was mentioned in the registration certificate is fatal to the case of the Department and in support of this submission, he relied upon the following authorities: a) VXL India Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai (2000 (122) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion that it is smuggled goods. Whereas the fact of the matter is that motor bike is a non-notified goods and burden to prove that it is smuggled goods is on the Department which in this case the Department has failed to establish. Further the Department has not issued the show-cause notice to the registered owner of the vehicle from whom the appellant has purchased the same by paying a consideration and without having any knowledge of the defective title of the seller. Therefore in view of the judgments cited supra, the appellant is protected and not liable to pay duty, fine and penalty. Further we also find that as per the Department s investigation from Mumbai Customs, the import under the same number of Bill of Entry was made on 02.06.20 .....

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