9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce with the directions of the Tribunal. The 70% depreciation has to be allowed on the value of the vehicle - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. C/160/2011 - Final Order No. 40518 / 2018 - Dated:- 22-2-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri B. Satish Sundar and Dr.S.Krishnanandh, Advocates for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry dated 22.5.1998 for import of one unit of second hand used Mitsubishi Pajero Vehicle with engine capacity of 2835 CC and 1993 model under Transfer of Residence facility in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .10.1998 was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant was a name lender and not entitled to import in terms of the Public Notice under Transfer of Residence as the car was not in his possession for one year prior to import and that the documents produced along with the Bill of Entry are not reliable. The show cause notice proposed to confiscate the vehicle, reject the declared value and for redetermination of the same and for imposing fine and penalty. After due process of law, the original authority rejected the declared price and applied 15% depreciation and ordered for confiscation of the car. He imposed redemption fine of ₹ 7.5 laksh with penalty of ₹ 1.50 lakhs. An appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reciation at 52% can be granted. The assessable value was thus worked out to be ₹ 5.43 lakhs on which appellant was liable to pay duty. The fine and penalty was maintained at ₹ 1.50 lakhs and ₹ 1 lakh respectively. 5. Against this order, the appellant as well as the department filed appeals before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and vide order dated 29.8.2003, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and allowed the department appeal. Against this, the appellant filed Appeal No.C/254/2003 before this Tribunal and vide final order dated 31.3.2006, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue of confiscation and also to allow depreciation at 70% of the price of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the appellant. There is no investigation done by the department with the concerned authorities at Dubai who had issued the registration certificate and the vehicle export certificate. Even the Commissioner (Appeals) accepts that no such verification is possible at such belated stage. In view of the same, the registration certificates issued in favour of the appellant ought to have been accepted as evidence of his possession and ownership over the car from May 1996. Thus, the appellant has not violated any condition of the Public Notice (TR). The only piece of evidence is the maintenance sticker said to have been found in the vehicle. The said aspect has been held to be not reliable by the Tribunal in the first round of litigation. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd would commensurate with the commission of the offence. 9. Heard both sides. 10. On perusal of the final order of the Tribunal dated 31.3.2006, we find that the Tribunal had given directions to grant 70% depreciation on the value of the car while determining its assessable value. Since that Tribunal order has not been stayed or set aside by a higher appellate forum, the order became final for all purposes and the Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to comply the directions therein in toto. However, in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has granted only 52% depreciation which is not in consonance with the directions of the Tribunal. We therefore hold that the 70% depreciation has to be allowed on the value of the vehicle. Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
