Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)Section 51 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 128 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 129D in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Collector Of Central Excise,Kanpur vs Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. C-7, Panki ... on 4 August, 2000
11. The issue with regard to the effect of non-filing of an appeal
against the assessment order and denial/claim of benefit arising out
of such assessment at a subsequent stage is no more open for any
debate, as per the well settled principle of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise,
Kanpur Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2000 (120) ELT
285 (S.C.). The relevant paragraph in the said judgment is quoted
below:
Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 12 November, 2002
The allegation with regard to MEIS benefits
wrongly availed by the appellant does not have an independent
nexus to the Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as such scheme designed
for the Merchant Exporter are dealt with under the Foreign Trade
Policy (2015-2020) and Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation)
Act, 1992. Thus, the administration of MEIS squarely falls within the
jurisdiction of the office of the DGFT and not the Customs authorities.
The division of exercise of authority between the DGFT and Customs
authorities is well recognized judicially and should be respected to
prevent abuse of due process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of
Customs, New Delhi, reported in 2003 (151) ELT 254 (S.C.) have
held that if the license issuing authority i.e. DGFT has not questioned
the veracity of the transactions undertaken under the license, the
11
Customs Appeal No. 85078 of 2019
customs authorities cannot refuse exemption on an allegation that
there was any misrepresentation. It has also been held that if there
was any misrepresentation, then it was the licensing authority which
had to take steps to cancel the license. In the case in hand, the
adjudicating authority has only referred to the DGFT Public Notice No.
30/2015-2020 dated 08.09.2016 to hypothetically conclude without
any corroboration that the actual user condition has not been fulfilled
and accordingly, the appellant is liable to pay the Customs duty. For
arriving at such conclusion, the learned adjudicating authority has
not discussed the issue with the licensing authorities, who are
competent under the Licensing Policy to discover such wrongdoing, if
any. Hence, it is evident that the Department has not brought on
any credible evidence to prove that the appellant had indulged into
fraudulent activities with the intent to defraud the Government
revenue.
Union Of India vs Ashok Kumar Sharma on 28 August, 2020
In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors., reported in (2005) 8 SCC
760 have held that burden of establishing malafides is very heavy on
the person who alleges it; that the allegations of malafides are often
more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such
allegations demand proof of high order of credibility.
The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992
Shabina Abraham & Ors vs Collector Of Central Excise & Customs on 29 July, 2015
In the case of Shabina
Abraham (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that "in
interpreting a taxing statute, equitable consideration are entirely out
of place and it cannot be interpreted on presumptions or
assumptions; the taxing statute is to be interpreted in the light of
what is expressly expressed and provisions cannot be imported so as
to supply any assumed deficiency."