Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (11) TMI 1285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d again. In respect of the unusual delay in passing the Order-in-Original, law is well settled that such unusual delay vitiates the proceedings, on which count alone the appeals can be stated to have merit. Moreover, our attention is drawn to the copy of the letter of DRI dated 17.03.2020 addressed to the Commissioner (AR) CESTAT, Mumbai that clearly indicates that show-cause notice was not received by Appellant Mafatlal R. Mehta, and the same letter of DRI was issued upon perusal of their own records. Further, it also indicates that there was no proof of service of intimation of personal hearing of notices on Appellant Mafatlala R. Mehata. Unfortunately, he has been penalised in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Additional Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Confirmation of penalty, after 15 years of issue of show-cause notice on the Appellant, under Section 112 of the Customs Act against importation by a third party of ATMs and its Controllers for alleged mis-declaration of description and value of goods is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that Appellant Citibank is engaged in carrying on activities of banking services at its various branches located in India and it had purchased 12 numbers of ATMs and 6 ATMS Controllers in July, 1998 from M/s. Philips India. On 11.09.1992 show-cause notice was issued by the then Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai on the allega .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... othing was done by the Respondent-Department between 1992 and 2007 till Order-in-Original was issued on 30.11.2007. Mr. Patel strongly argued, with reference to the judicial decision of Meghmani Organics Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2019 (7) TMI 1409, Siddhi Vinayak Syntex P. Ltd vs. UOI reported in 2017 (3) TMI 1534, Shivkrupa Processors P. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2018 (3) TMI 1701, Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2019-TIOL-1597-HC-MUM-CUS. He also argued that delay of over 15 years in passing the Order-in-Original vitiates the proceedings and there was no evidence available to establish that Appellant had any knowledge about ATMs and ATMs Controllers being supplied by M/s. Philips India had been imported by any company/firm of M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and with mis-declaration for the purpose of evading the Customs duty and report received from DRI vide the letter dated 17.03.2020 indicates that show-cause notice was issued to the Citybank Appellant, but it was returned by the postal authority as refused by the recipient and the role of Appellants have been specifically stated in the Order-in-Original that refutes the allegation of Appellant that its role/participation has not been indicated in the Order-in-Original. Further, he submitted that these appeals are hopelessly barred by limitations as Order-in-Original was issued in 2007 and appeals have been filed in 2014, after a gap of almost 7 years, for which interference by the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce fading away over the ages, Appellant Mafatlal R. Mehta deserves to be relieved from his liability, which going by the case record would clearly reveal that a general allegation of abatement against him without a clear finding was only levelled against him for his involvement during clearance of goods from Customs as a Customs broker. 6. In respect of Appellant bank, as could be observed during the course of hearing and from the case record, it is a subsequent purchaser of the goods form M/s. Philips India who had allegedly purchased the imported goods imported by Jiten P. Mody and no complacence is noticeable between the Appellant bank and the said Jiten P. Mody except that in the statement of Mr. Ramamrutham, former Philips India em .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates