9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble when imported into India from so much of the additional duty of customs, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the standard rate specified in the corresponding entry in Column No. 4 of the Table. However, the proviso stipulates that the exemption shall apply on goods imported on or after 01.05.2012 if the importer declares the State of destination namely the State where the goods are intended to be taken immediately for the first time after importation whether for sale or distribution on stock transfer basis and also declares the value added tax registration number or sales Tax registration number or Central Tax registration number, as the case may, be in the said State. By comparing the data, the goods valued at Rs. 73.79 Crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AD] availed under Serial No. 2 of Notification dated 17.03.2012 on the goods imported under various Bills of Entry during the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2017. The order also confirms and orders for recovery of SAD and imposes penalty. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:- "(i) I deny the benefit of exemption from Special Additional duty amounting to Rs: 2,95,17,493/- (Rs. Two Crores Ninety Five Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Three Only) availed by M/s Indo China Impex, New Delhi under Sr. No. 2 of Notification No. 21/2012-Cus dated 17.3.2012 on the goods imported under various Bills of Entry, as enumerated in para 21.1 of the show cause notice, during the period 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2017. (ii) 1 confirm and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew Delhi, towards the above said demand of Special Additional Duty and the penalties so imposed on them." 2. Customs Appeal No. 51088 of 2020 has been filed by Mr. B. S. Sahni, partner of the appellant to assail that part of the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner that imposes a penalty of Rs. 15.00 Lakhs on him under section 112 (b) of the Customs Act [the Customs Act], 3. The order sheet reveals that the appellant repeatedly sought adjournments and, therefore an order was passed on 05.11.2024 that the appeal would be listed on 03.02.2025 and no further adjournment shall be granted. 4. Case has been called out, but no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. In such circumstances, it is considered appropri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importation whether for sale or distribution on stock transfer basis and also declares the value added tax registration number or sales Tax registration number or Central Tax registration number, as the case may, be in the said State. 8. The Principal Commissioner, in the impugned order, has recorded the following findings:- "38. I find that the Noticee No. 1 had diverted/utilized the imported goods amounting to Rs. 73,79,37,336/- involving SAD of Rs. 2,95,17,493/- without issuance of invoices (in cash) and the same had not been declared and disclosed by them in their VAT returns filed with the VAT Department, Delhi. I further find the Noticee No. 1 has also not produced any documentary evidence on record that they had sold or distrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that the audit had also been conducted in the same premises, thus, the statement of Sh. Barinderjit Singh Sahni was again found deliberately mis-stated. I further find that the Noticee No. 1 had lodged an FIR dated 10.04.17 that the records of the firm were lost in Delhi but his chartered accountant stated the same were kept in place at Amritsar office of M/s Indo China Impex situated at inside Ghee Mandi, which clearly proves that a false FIR was lodged by the Noticee No. 1 to distract and derail the investigations. I further find that the Authorized representative Sh. Jatinder Singh of Noticee No. 1 vide his statement dated 18.12.17 had stated that the finance and taxation related routine work were looked after by a Chartered Accounta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest under Section 28AA of the Act ibid." (emphasis supplied) 9. The aforesaid findings have been recorded by the Principal Commissioner after noticing that the communication from the VAT department at Delhi revealed that the appellant had declared turnover amounting to Rs. 4.08 Crores during the financial year 2012-2013 to 2016-2017 against the VAT Registration Number of Delhi State and for the same period 2012-2013 to 2016-2017, as per the records generated through Customs EDI System, the imports made by the appellant amounted to Rs. 76.21 Crores. Thus, by comparing the data, the goods valued at Rs. 73.79 Crores were not declared and disclosed by the appellant in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
