Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Nitin Jatania vs Commissioner Of Customs ... on 24 January, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. C/COD-1710/12 C/S/2880/12
IN APPEAL NO. C/1251/12 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. CAO No.22/2012/CAC/CC/BKS dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Nitin Jatania
:
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication),
Mumbai
Respondent
Appearance Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for Appellants Shri D.D. Joshi, Supdt. (A.R.) for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 24.01.2013 Date of Decision : 24.01.2013 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal along with the application for stay and an application for Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Considering the reason stated by an affidavit for causing the delay in filing the appeal is satisfactory, I condone the delay and allow the COD application.
3. The stay application is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed on him under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on account of using IEC of some other person for importing the goods.
4. After hearing both sides, I find that the issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass. Therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the impugned dues adjudged, I take up the appeal itself for consideration and disposal.
5. In the case of Hamid Fahim Ansari vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) Nhava Sheva reported in 2009 (241) ELT 168 (Bom) the Honble High Court of Bombay has held that imports done in the name of petitioner but for some other person, if the petitioner has obtained IEC by misrepresenting the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Director General of Foreign Trade, it is for that body to take action. Petitioner having valid IEC number and having paid duty is entitled to release of goods. In the result, the Honble High Court held that using of IEC of some other person is not an offence under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the appellant has not violated the provisions of Customs Act. Accordingly, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant.
6. With these observations, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Stay application is also disposed of. (Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3