9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been settled by the settlement commissioner vide Final order No.115/Final-Order/Cus/RKT/2012 dated 19-10-2012. Therefore other co-noticee in the same case should not be charged with any penalty. By the settling the case of the main person, case of other co-noticee also stand settled - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellants. - C/86292, 86293 And 86693/16 - A/85291-85 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice was issued for demand of duty and confiscation of the car, in addition penalties were proposed to the present appellants. The main importer Smt. Sunetra Ajit Pawar approached the settlement commission. The Settlement commission settled the case accordingly it was held that car is new but value was mis-declared. On the value of US$110000, the differential duty was accepted by the importer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt could find out actual value therefore the present appellants were absolutely unaware about the actual value of the car. Therefore they are not liable for penalty under Section 112(a) and 114A. He further submits that since the case of the main appellant i.e. Smt. Sunetra Ajit Pawar was settled by the settlement commission, other co noticee in the same case cannot be charged with any penalty. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the case of the main appellant Smt. Sunetra Ajit Pawar has been settled by the settlement commissioner vide Final order No.115/Final-Order/Cus/RKT/2012 dated 19-10-2012. Therefore other co-noticee in the same case should not be charged with any penalty. By the settling the case of the main person, case of other co-noticee also stand settled. The judgments cited by the ld. Counsel directly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
