Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.41 seconds)Section 11B in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order
dated 26-11-2001 dismissed the appeal. Even though
the Apex Court did not spell out the reasons for
dismissal, it can well be construed in the light of
its earlier judgment in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. and
Mahavir Aluminium that the law relating to refund of
pre-deposit has become final.”
It is the order dated 07.08.1996 which was passed by
this Court in Union of India v. Suvidhe Ltd. dismissing the
special leave petition which was filed by the Union of India
against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Suvidhe
Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 (82) ELT 177]. Since the
C.A.Nos.1633-1638 of 2004 etc. 11
special leave petition was dismissed in limine, we would
like to reproduce para 2 of the judgment of the High Court
wherein the High Court had observed that in case of such
deposits, provisions of Section 11B of the Customs Act will
have no application. This para reads as under: -
Bussa Overseas And Properties Ltd. vs Cc (Import) on 7 March, 2002
“Redemption Fine
In view of our finding on issue (i) that the goods
are liable to confiscation as they have been
imported without cover of a valid licence. We hold
that levy of fine is warranted. However we note
that for the first time in the case of Bussa
Overseas Properties Ltd. vs. CC(I) Mumbai 2002(148)
ELT 328, the Tribunal held that over-proof whisky
having more than 55% alcohol content by vol. is a
concentrate of alcoholic beverages and until this
decision, a practice to allow clearances of similar
goods under REP licence was prevalent. We also note
that a long period has lapsed since the import and
that the goods are raw materials for manufacture of
alcoholic beverages that this is not a case of duty
evasion as the finding on undervaluation has on set
aside by us thereby reducing the gravamen of the
charge. The assessable value of the goods imported
by FCPL is Rs.15,08,040/- while the assessable value
of the goods imported by SRN is Rs.22,78,578/-. The
C.A.Nos.1633-1638 of 2004 etc. 4
fine levied by the Commissioner on FCPL is
Rs.51,62,413/- and that of SRN is Rs.22,65,006/-.
We are not able to fathom the logic behind fixing
the above quantum of fines. There is nothing in the
impugned order to indicate the basis on which the
quantum was arrived at. Having regard to the above
factors including the fact that the import Policy
was liberalised subsequently and that only the
charge of ITC violation has been sustained by us, we
reduce the fine levied on FCPL to Rs. 10 lakhs and
on SRN to Rs. 15 lakhs.”
We are of the opinion that the CESTAT has given valid
reasons for reducing the penalty and fine and the discretion
exercised by the CESTAT on valid considerations does not
call for any interference. These appeals are accordingly,
dismissed. We make it clear that the dismissal of the
appeals would not impact in any way the appeal which is
preferred by the respondents-assessees and is pending in the
Bombay High Court. The said appeal shall be decided by the
Bombay High Court on its own merits.
Suvidhe Ltd. vs Union Of India on 3 February, 1996
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order
dated 26-11-2001 dismissed the appeal. Even though
the Apex Court did not spell out the reasons for
dismissal, it can well be construed in the light of
its earlier judgment in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. and
Mahavir Aluminium that the law relating to refund of
pre-deposit has become final.”
It is the order dated 07.08.1996 which was passed by
this Court in Union of India v. Suvidhe Ltd. dismissing the
special leave petition which was filed by the Union of India
against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Suvidhe
Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 (82) ELT 177]. Since the
C.A.Nos.1633-1638 of 2004 etc. 11
special leave petition was dismissed in limine, we would
like to reproduce para 2 of the judgment of the High Court
wherein the High Court had observed that in case of such
deposits, provisions of Section 11B of the Customs Act will
have no application. This para reads as under: -
The Customs Act, 1962
1