Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA
Kansal Tex-O-Tube Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Central Exise & Customs, Surat-I – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sudhanshu Bissa with learned advocate Mr.Paresh M.Dave for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.C.B.Gupta for the respondent no.1.
2. This Tax Appeal is filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 arising out of the order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Tribunal Ahmedabad (for short “CESTAT”) in Appeal no.C/377 of 2002. This Court by order 07.09.2007 Admitted the Appeal on the following questions:
3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant is a 100% expert oriented undertaking (for short ‘EOU’) was engaged in business of manufacturing twisted yarns and polyester filament yarns (hereinafter referred to as “PFY”).
3.1. The appellant was allowed to import PFY free of duty being 100% EOU for utilizing such inputs in or in relation to the manufacture of permitted goods meant for exports.
3.2. The appellant was also permitted to deliver
The court established that an importer remains liable for customs duties even if goods are seized from third parties, especially in cases of clandestine removal and failure to maintain proper records....
Use of false declarations attracts s.114AA penalty independently of confiscation fine and re-export option; duty liability persists.
The tribunal clarified the procedural requirements for admissibility of statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act, establishing that improper evidence leads to invalidation of confiscation....
The judgment emphasizes the need for substantial evidence and the burden of proof in cases of alleged clandestine removal, highlighting the requirement to prove facts with a degree of probability.
(1) Personal interests of importers who made improper imports are pitted against interests of national economy and more particularly, interests of farmers. Imposition of penalty on such importers is ....
Tribunal's order perverse for ignoring deliberate wrong export scheme code to evade scrutiny, suppression, and notification violations; failed to distinguish inadvertent error from wilful act; origin....
Wilful suppression and misstatement in job work exports using wrong scheme code justifies extended limitation under Section 28(4) and substantial pre-deposit; prior rulings inapplicable if facts diff....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
