Gujarat High Court
Rubamin Ltd vs Principal Commissioner Customs ... on 22 February, 2018
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia
O/TAXAP/78/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL (TAX APPEAL) NO. 78 of 2018
With
TAX APPEAL NO. 79 of 2018
TO
TAX APPEAL NO. 80 of 2018
==========================================================
RUBAMIN LTD....Appellant(s)
Versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS AHMEDABAD & 1....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND NAINAWATI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 22/02/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The assessee is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising the following questions for our consideration :
"a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was correct in imposing fine and penalty on the basis of Test Reports when the sampling method was challenged by the Appellants ?
b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was correct in holding that imported goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962?Page 1 of 3
O/TAXAP/78/2018 ORDER c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal is correct in imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 when the bona fides of the appellants are not in dispute?"
2. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal while upholding the department's stand that the assessee in three separate consignments had imported zinc ash which contained less than 65% of zinc and thereby made imported goods prohibited goods, reduced the redemption fine from Rs.17.50 lacs and penalty of Rs. 1.50 lacs to Rs. 9 lacs and Rs. 75,000/ respectively. The sole ground raised before us by the counsel for the assessee was that the department did not clarify the sampling process for laboratory testing of the product in question. He submitted that a minimum of 10 samples from each lot should have been taken. The variation was less than 1.5% as compared to the prescribed standard. We however, notice that as per the appellate Commissioner, the sampling standards prescribed for zinc concentration could not be applied for the product in question. He had therefore, rejected the said contention.
3. We keep the question of law open to be decided in better appropriate case. For the present, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. Firstly on the ground that even if insufficient number of samples were taken nevertheless, samples whatever taken showed deficiency in zinc contents. Further, we are informed that the assessee had under said three consignments, imported 150 metric tones of zinc ash value of which would be worth crores of rupees. Redemption fine of Rs.9 lacs and penalty of Rs. 75000/ in any case cannot be stated to be unreasonable. Under the circumstances, Tax Appeals are dismissed.
Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/78/2018 ORDER
(AKIL KURESHI, J.)
(B.N. KARIA, J.)
raghu
Page 3 of 3