SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersBiden says migration has been good for US economyUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockGST - April month collections go past Rs 2 lakh crore threshold - peak to Rs 2.1 lakh croreCX - Alleged clandestine removal - Not replying to SCN on the ground that letter is not furnished by department is only a ruse as reliance is not placed on the same by the respondent authority for adjudicating the SCNs: SCGST - Proper officer observes that the reply filed is not satisfactory and since the assessee has nothing more to say, demand is confirmed - Officer has not applied his mind - Matter remitted: HCGST - Petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of registration - Petitioner does not seek to continue his business and has sought cancellation of registration - Order modified accordingly: HCGST - Seizing the outward movement of funds from petitioner's bank account - Life of an order of provisional attachment u/s 83(2) is only one year - HDFC Bank, henceforth, cannot restrain operation of bank account: HCTax - on Death and ContemplationDelhi, Noida schools receive bomb threats; Children sent back homeI-T- Writ court is not required to interfere with assessment order, where assessee also has available option of statutory appeal: HCED seizes Rs 90 Cr stored in crypto in Gaming App scamI-T-Transfer of assessment is sustained, where assessee does not reply to any notice issued in this regard & where valid reasons exist for transferring assessment: HCHM appeals Naxalism will be erased in 2 yrs if Modi voted back to powerAmerica softens offence related to use of marijuanaI-T - Rule 11UA does not mentions pre-condition of approval of balance sheet by Annual General Meeting: ITATAfter US & UK India comes third in terms of 79 mn cyber attacks in 2023: StudyCBIC revises tariff value of gold, silver & edible oils
 
Cus - Under garb of rectification it is not appropriate to interfere with order passed as same would amount to reviewing order - nonetheless, penalty cannot be imposed simultaneously on Proprietorship concern and Proprietor: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 08, 2016: THIS is an application filed for Rectification of an alleged Mistake in the final order passed by the Tribunal on 07.05.2012. Incidentally, this application had come before the Bench on an earlier occasion and when the Bench had passed an order dated 20.12.2012. See 2013-TIOL-487-CESTAT-MUM.

Be that as it may, when the Application was heard recently the applicant Mohan Singh Rajpurohit, proprietor of M/s. Shravan Enterprises submitted that in his appeal he had submitted that he was a bona fide purchaser of a transferable licence without the knowledge of fraud and he had not cleared the goods imported under the said licence and had requested for re-export of the same. However, even though the Tribunal had noted these submissions, in the findings it has been recorded that the importers (transferees of licence) very well knew that the original licence issued was a licence with actual user condition and the same is not transferable and this observation is erroneous as far as the applicant is concerned. Inasmuch as it is prayed that the order be recalled insofar as the applicant is concerned.

It is further submitted that the proprietor Mohan Singh Rajpurohit and his proprietary firm M/s. Shravan Enterprises are one and the same and separate penalties cannot be imposed on them.

The Bench observed -

"5. We do not think it appropriate to interfere and rectify the said order under the garb of this present application and it would amount to reviewing the order on merits. In our considered opinion, as far as the applicant is concerned there is an error apparent on the fact of the record to impose penalty on the applicant to the tune of Rs.1 lakh when the penalty of Rs.1,10,000/- has already been imposed the Proprietorship concern i.e. M/s. Shravan Enterprises. We set aside the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on him by the impugned order. Further, the order dated 07.05.2012 is modified to the extent that penalty imposed on the applicant is set aside. Rest of the order dated 07.05.2012 would remain intact."

The ROM application was disposed of.

(See 2016-TIOL-80-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