Indian Tax Solution
Commission had jurisdiction to deal with the matter - Sections 127A and 127B of Customs Act, 1962. [2004 (165) E.L.T. 499 (Guj.) followed].
Applicant accepted the allegation of underinvoicing which has gone on for a period of over three years - Applicant discharged the liability of entire differential duty along with interest - Allegation of underinvoicing not refuted - Adjustment of Rs. Ten lakhs deposited in the account of one of the co-applicants allowed although they are separate entities but they are a part of same family concerns/firms - Allowing such an adjustment would cause no harm to Revenue’s case
Under invoicing carried on for over three years and duty evasion running into few crores of rupees - In such case complete immunity from penalty cannot be granted even though entire duty along with interest was paid promptly - Sections 127C and 127H of Customs Act, 1962.
Wrist watches notified under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 and imported as baggage in present case - Value of goods declared as Rs. 12,000/- in Disembarkation Card and bill of entry not filed - Show cause notice invokes both demand of additional duty and re-determination of value and covered under short levy on account of undervaluation - Disembarkation Card not requires declaration of description and quantity of goods brought as baggage and hence, baggage cases covered under category of undervaluation - Impugned matter relating case of levy, assessment and collection of customs duty - All cases of non-levy are cases of short-levy
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 not authorizes collection of new levy as percentage of value of exempted goods where records enable computation of Cenvat credit taken in respect of exempted goods - Provisions not intended as penal measure if assessee opts for non-maintenance of separate accounts - Tribunal decision in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 452 (Tribunal) holding requirement to pay amount as per rule ceases once credit reversed, applicable - Full and true disclosure made - Immunity from prosecution granted and duty, interest and penalty quantified and settled
Import of goods using other’s IEC - Undervaluation accepted and duty deposited more than amounts demanded in show cause notices - Voluntary acceptance of higher duty liability to be rejected in view of hazy valuation scenario and instant acceptance by applicants - Evidence to support reduced duty liability in one instance, not produced and such acceptance of reduced liability rejected - Goods liable to confiscation and fine - Complete immunity from fine in lieu of confiscation granted considering demurrage
On plea of applicant that a 41 kg. bag was containing 3700 pouches, the Bench would like to clarify that so far as the bags weighing 41 kgs. are concerned, the SCN figure of 5200 pouches of 7 gms. was not given a go bye by the Commission. In fact, it was only in order to simplify the calculations that the figures were converted into 3700 pouches of 10 gms. on the pro-rata basis. Arithmetically, this did result in extra addition of 6 kgs. per bag which was ignored so as to round off the figure.
Applicant is a co-borrower who circumvented the two years ban on sale of car and took the car into his possession and use - Applicant would not become a co-borrower with a total stranger and would even pay the loan amount - Applicant had the knowledge about illegal import of said car and its liability to confiscation
Immunity from penalty - No criminal complaint of fraud and cheating lodged by applicant with appropriate agency against alleged executor of fraud - Applicant cannot be acquitted entirely of his responsibility for damage caused by fraud
Applications pending from the year 2004 need to be heard earliest, especially further hearings are also required before February 2008
Application therefor - Admission when filed by COFEPOSA absconder - Provisions of Settlement Commission in Customs Act, 1962 do not bar application from COFEPOSA detenue or absconder - Exclusion clause not provided in provisions against admission of cases concerning persons ibid
Settlement Application was not maintainable by virtue of third proviso of Section 127C(1) of Customs Act, 1962 - Plea of importer that goods were seized prior to clearance rejected as if they had been cleared then it would not have been either detected or if detected, seized - Sections 2(3a), 123 and 127B ibid.
Application for - Co-noticee buying illicitly imported goods is ‘any other person’ entitled to seek settlement - It was more so as show cause notice had demanded duty from him jointly and severally - Application admitted as he had made true and full disclosure of duty liability, and paid up same
Settlement application by absconder under COFEPOSA Act, 1974 - Admission - No legal bar - Application admitted for settlement
No legal bar for admission of an application from a COFEPOSA detenue or an absconder - An applicant’s so called abscondence cannot be a bar to entertain his application by the Settlement Commission