SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

India received foreign remittance of USD 111 bn in 2022, says UNPitroda resigns as Chairman of Indian Overseas Congress over racist remarkGovt hosts workshop on improving Ease of Doing Business in Mining sectorI-T - Anything made taxable by rule-making authority u/s 17(2)(viii) should be 'perquisite' in form of 'fringe benefits or amenity': SCCus - Drawback - Revenue contends that appeal of exporter ought to have been dismissed by Tribunal as not maintainable since correct remedy was filing a revision application with Central government - Appeal disposed of: HCCus - CHA - AA has clearly brought out the modus adopted by the appellant and how he was a party to the entire under valuation exercise - Factual finding affirmed by Tribunal - No question of law arises for consideration: HCGST - Proper officer has not applied his mind while passing the order; confirmed demand by opining that reply is not satisfactory - Proper Officer is directed to withdraw all punitive actions taken against petitioner pursuant to impugned order: HCGST - Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion - Non-application of mind - Order set aside and matter remitted for re-adjudication: HCGST - Cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns - Suspension/revocation of license would be counterproductive and works against the interest of revenue - Pragmatic view needs to be taken to permit petitioner to carry on his business: HC86 flights of AI Express cancelled as crew goes on mass sick leaveTax Refund Conundrum - Odyssey of Legal MisstepsI-T- AO not barred from issuing more than one SCN; Fresh SCN seeking information is not without jurisdiction, more so where HC itself directed re-doing of assessment: HCMurthy launches Capacity Building on Design and Entrepreneurship programCash, liquor & drugs worth Rs 110 Cr seized from Jharkhand ahead of pollsI-T- Appeal before CIT(A) (NFAC) is rightly dismissed where it has been delayed by over one year without just & reasonable cause: ITATPoll-induced stress: 2 Bihar officials die of heart attack at polling boothsSixth Edition of Commandants' Conclave held in PuneSome Gujarat villages keep away from polls over unfulfilled demands from governmentRoof-hugging inflation nudges Argentina to print first lot of 10,000 notes of pesoInvestigation finds presence of ‘boys club’ strands of culture at American bank regulatorUS cancels licence to some firms found exporting materials to Huawei
 
Cus - Since goods are not notified under S.123 and provisions of Chapter IVA, relating to notified goods have been deleted from Customs Act more than decade back, there cannot be any order of confiscation: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 09, 2013: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

Vide Order-in-Appeal dated 01/07/2003, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai held that since the goods are not notified under section 123 and Chapter IVA dealing with notified goods have been deleted from the Customs Act, 1962, the goods are not liable to absolute confiscation, let alone confiscation. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.

Revenue is not happy with this "all is lost" order and, therefore, is before the CESTAT.

It is submitted that the goods were of foreign origin as is evident from the markings on the goods and the respondent failed to produce any documentary evidence showing licit purchase/possession of the goods and, therefore, are liable to confiscation.

The respondent stated that when the goods were seized, he had approached the Customs department and had given them the tax invoice as well as the railway receipts for transporting the goods from Chennai to Mumbai. Therefore, he is the owner of the goods. However, he had not retained a copy of the same. It is also submitted that after the impugned order was passed he had approached the Customs authorities for release of the goods vide letter dated 10/07/2003 and he was informed vide letter dated 04/01/2005 that the goods had already been disposed of.

The Bench observed -

"5.1 Since the goods are not notified under section 123 and the provisions of Chapter IVA, relating to notified goods have been deleted from the Customs Act more than a decade back, the Customs cannot absolutely confiscate the goods at all and, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) is right in setting aside the order of confiscation and directing the Revenue to return the goods to the respondent Shri Manoj Gupta. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in his order.

5.2 Inasmuch as the goods have already been disposed of, the Revenue is directed to refund the sale proceeds of the goods to the respondent Shri Manoj Gupta within any further delay."

The Revenue appeal was disposed of in the above terms.

By the way, what were the goods…

(See 2013-TIOL-708-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST