9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as led by appellant to claim the exemption, that established deliberate misdeclaration to Customs. Customs proved its case against the appellant. Appellant made attempt to be enriched at the cost of Revenue making deliberate misdeclaration. That made the goods liable to confiscation being smuggled goods under section 2(39) read with section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962. Questionable conduct and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the said notification. 2. It is pleaded today that Customs examined the goods as well as the documents while clearing the same for which there should not be denial of exemption benefit. 3. Appellant made Customs to believe that it is entitled to concessional rate of duty without having any evidence in that regard. Law is well settled that whoever makes the other to believe on the unbelievabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. 433 (S.C.) that by "fraud" is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the ill will towards the other is immaterial. The expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the deceived. Undue advantage obtained by the deceiver, will almost always call loss or detriment to the deceived. Similarly a "fraud" is an act o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o amount to a fraud on the court (see Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amha Shankar Family Trust, [1996 (3) SCC 310] and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu's case AIR-1994 SC-853. No judgment of a Court can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything and fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity. 6. When no evidence was led by appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd - AIR 1996 (SC) 2005. The Apex Court in the case of S P Chengalavaraya Naidu v. Jagannath - AIR 1994 SC 853 and in the case of Ram Preeti Yadav v. UP Board of High School and Intermediate Education - AIR 2003 SC 4268 has held that no court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he obtained by fraud. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
