9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny Bill of Entry. The Bill of Entry was filed by Shri Cyril Anand Fernandez. In this fact, the demand under Section 28 cannot be confirmed against the appellant irrespective of whatever role he has played in the import of the car. It is also a fact on record that the goods have been released to Shri Murli Manohar Pandey who was the owner of the car at the relevant time, on payment of customs d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was based in Dubai and was arranging supply of car. In India, Shri Cyril Anand Fernandez filed Bill of Entry and cleared the car. The car was subsequently sold to one Shri Murli Manohar Pandey from whom the car was seized and subsequently confiscated. Shri Murli Manohar Pandey had taken release of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. He submits that the demand was made under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of CC(I), Mumbai vs. Jagdish Cancer Research Centre 2001 (132) ELT 257 (SC), the Hon ble Supreme Court held that when the confiscated goods are released, duty should be collected under Section 125(2). In such case, Section 28 shall not apply. He has further relied upon the following judgments:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant irrespective of whatever role he has played in the import of the car. It is also a fact on record that the goods have been released to Shri Murli Manohar Pandey who was the owner of the car at the relevant time, on payment of customs duty and redemption fine. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Cancer Research Centre (supra) held that in case of release of confiscated go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
