9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce without proper basis is incorrect - the value arrived at by the authorities is not justified. Violation of the condition that the vehicle was to be in the possession of importer for a period of one year - HELD THAT:- The importer has accepted that he has violated the provisions. For the same reason, the vehicle was seized and confiscated and however, the same was realized on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. Once, the vehicle is allowed to be released on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation, the violations, if any, has been atoned. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/168/2009-DB - Final Order No. 20439/2019 - Dated:- 16-5-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Instruction F.No.390/Misc/116/2017-JC dated 11.07.2018 has held that monetary limit prescribed by the Board in terms of litigation policy is ₹ 20,00,00/- However, the amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- prescribed in the above instruction pertains to legacy issues relating to Central Excise and Service Tax alone. The monetary limit prescribed by the Board for filing appeal before the Hon ble CESTAT in customs matters is only ₹ 10,00,000/- as per Board Instruction F.No.390/Misc/163/2010-JC dated 30.11.2016. They submitted that the mistake apparent in the order may be rectified. The Tribunal vide Order dated 27.03.2019 recalled its Order dated 06.09.2018 and restored the Revenue s appeal. 3. The learned AR for the depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Narayan Nambiar Meloth v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin 2009 (233) ELT 77 (Tri. Bang.) Commissioner of Customs v. Sanjay R. Khushalani 2010 (251) ELT 42 (Ker.) Nadeem Gubitra v. Commissioner of Customs, JNCH 2010 (258) ELT 277 (Tri. Mumbai) 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, we find that Learned Commissioner (A) has followed the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Eicher Tractor (Supra). We also find that the original adjudicating authority has simply rejected the value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 but have not given any reasons for not proceeding sequentially as per Customs Valuation R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace like Dubai where right hand drive car is not permitted, he could not have possessed such a car for a period of one year. For the above reason, just before coming to India he had purchased the right hand drive car so that he won t violate Indian laws. He also quotes a Latin maxim which means that the law does not asks one to do impossible things. This argument, at best is very specious one. If he could not be in possession of a car with right hand drive for one year in Dubai, he cannot for that reason violate the import policy of India by purchasing the same just before arrival at India. Actually in order not to violate the laws of UAE, the appellant justifies violation of import policy of India. This is not acceptable. The imposition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
