9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year of manufacture leading to undue benefit in the duty that is to be levied on the vehicles. The invoking of the extended period in section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be faulted. Penalty u/s 114A of CA - Held that: - the ingredients that warrant the invoking of this section is identical to that for invoking the extended period - Consequently, the imposition of penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 also cannot be faulted. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/1214 to 1216/06 - A/88008-88010/17/CB - Dated:- 12-6-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Brijesh Pathak, Advocate for Appellant Shri K M D Souja, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate authority rejected the appeals of the three importers leading to the present proceedings before us. 2. In the impugned order-in-appeal no.396/2006 MCH/JC/Gr V/06 dated 29th August 2006, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I confirmed the demand, interest and penalty in relation to the Toyota Land Cruiser imported vide bill of entry no.123151/08.05.2000 filed by Shri Patel Imran Suleman claimed to be a 1997 model valued at ₹ 5,50,000. At the time of clearance, the value had been enhanced leading to assessment of duty of ₹ 9,78,783, the confiscated car permitted to be redeemed on payment of fine of ₹ 2,10,000 besides being imposed with penalty of ₹ 40,000. It transpired that the year of manufacture in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 114A of Customs Act, 1962. 4. In the impugned order-in-appeal no.426/2006 MCH/JC/Gr V/06 dated 14th September 2006, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I confirmed the demand, interest and penalty in relation to the Toyota Land Cruiser imported vide bill of entry no.123150/08.05.2000 filed by Shri Mohammad Shaikh Imam claimed to be a 1997 model valued at ₹ 5,50,000. At the time of clearance, the value was enhanced to ₹ 9,61,137 leading to assessment of duty of ₹ 9,78,783, the confiscated car permitted to be redeemed on payment of fine of ₹ 2,20,000 and penalty of ₹ 40,000 imposed on the importer. It transpired that the year of manufacture in the price certificate of the said car issued by M/s Toyota T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her contention of Learned Counsel that the notice initiating the proceedings was barred by limitation owing to the completion of an assessment by issue of an adjudication order enhancing value, confiscation of the car, redemption thereof on payment of fine and imposition of penalty which would preclude the scope for invoking the extended period in section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. We find from the proceedings that the adjudication order issued before the clearance of the vehicles was an outcome of violation of the conditions prescribed in the public notice supra and the adoption of assessable value in accordance with the procedure laid down for valuation of imported goods. It needs noting that the declared value would not conform to the spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rice certificates issued for the three vehicles. There has been a misdeclaration of the year of manufacture leading to undue benefit in the duty that is to be levied on the vehicles. The invoking of the extended period in section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be faulted. 9. The appellant also challenges the imposition of penalty without the pre-requisite of confiscation of the vehicles. We find that the adjudicating authority has invoked section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 and the ingredients that warrant the invoking of this section is identical to that for invoking the extended period. Consequently, the imposition of penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 also cannot be faulted. 10. Before we part to this matter, we feel com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
