9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and had met Mr Ali at a bike enthusiast meet held at Marine Drive, Mumbai. The vehicle was registered with the RTA, Raigad, having registration no. MH 06 AT 9191. Upon seeing the document, he decided to buy the vehicle and made a deal of Rs. 5,70,000/- and paid Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash in the month of May, 2009. Mr. Ali had provided copies of Registration Certificate, Certificate of Taxation and Bill. Mr. Ali had taken the signature of the appellant on documents for transferring the said bike in his name from the name of Shri Sheikh Mehtab Babu, who was registered as the owner of the said bike. Mr. Ali asked to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 70,000/- after such transfer. However, Mr. Ali disappeared after handing over the bike and appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said order. 6. On appeal, the Hon'ble Tribunal remanded the case back to the Original Authority on the issue of lack of Jurisdictional Authority of DRI to issue notice is pending before the Higher Judicial Authority. Lower Adjudicating Authority has given the finding that Officer of DRI are empowered to exercise of power as Customs Officers in the terms of amended provision of Section 2(34), 5 of Customs Act, 1962 and Notification No. 25/2022-Cus(NT) dated 31.03.2022 read with Clause 97 of the Finance Act. 7. On appeal filed against the Order-in-Original dated 31.10.2022, Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax (Appeals-I) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 27.04.2023 upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... boli was also found to be fake. Means, all documents related to seized motor bike found to be fake. 11. Bike is seized from Hyderabad, therefore Lower Authority have jurisdiction to decide the matter. 12. Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shanoob M.S. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [2017 (358) ELT 538 (Tri-Bang)]. This Co-ordinate Bench Order is not applicable, since the appellant is not a registered owner nor purchased from a registered owner, since registration certificate is found to be fake. In addition, Learned Counsel for the appellant relies on the following case laws: i) J Suresh, S/o J. Laxminarayana Vs Commissioner of Customs (Prev), Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh [2022 (11) TMI 1012 - CESTAT, Hyderabad] is also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d bike is registered in the fake name and other documents also found fake. Appellant purchased the bike with a price more than Rs. 13 lakhs in Rs. 5,70,000/- and paid in cash Rs. 5 lakhs without ascertaining the actual owner or registered owner. Bike is find goods as the appellant stated in his statement dated 24.10.2011 that he is interested in owning super bikes and went Marine Drive, Mumbai on a Sunday to attend super bikes assemble held by owners of such motor bikes. Therefore, the appellant is well aware about bikes. In these facts and circumstances, it is clear that appellant is not bonafide purchaser. 14. In this regard, Learned Counsel for the appellant cited Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 27.11.2024 in the case of Nalin Chok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
