Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)
Smt. Sushma vs Patparganj on 13 July, 2021 cites

Shri Ram & Shiv Ram & Anr. Etc vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 21 October, 1997

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ram & Another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1975 SCC (3) 495 has specifically held that intentional aid and active 11 Customs Appeal No. 52193 of 2019 [SM] complicity is the gist of the offence of the abetment. I observe from the Show Cause Notice as also from the order under challenge that there is no allegation against the appellant about intentional aiding and active complicity. All what alleged is that the appellant conducted the market inquiry into a casual and amateur improper manner. There has been catena of judgments to show that any lapse in performance of duty by Custom Officer can at the most be considered as inefficiency which cannot lead to any charge of abetement or connivance thus attracting the penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 92 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

Shri Vasudeva Bank Ltd. vs Union Of India on 1 January, 1800

Above all, Custom Officers are entitled to protection in view of section 155 read with section 106 of Customs Act as was held by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Shri Vasudeva Bank vs. Union of India reported as 1990 (48) ELT 214 where the Hon'ble Court has analyzed the phrase "good faith" and has given protection to Government servants discharging their statutory duties. Further, I find that the entire onus was of the Department to bring on record some cogent evidence to prove the positive act of alleged abeting on part of the appellant. But there is nothing produced on record about any nexus of the appellant with the allegations of collusion and connivance with Sujjan Kumar for abeting the over-valuation of goods exported.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ruchika International vs Commissioner Of Customs on 28 April, 2015

and also upon a decision of Tribunal Mumbai in the case of Ruchika International vs. Commissioner of Customs, Pune - 2015 (328) ELT 660 (Tri.- Mum.). It was held in this decision that the allegations of abeting the over valuation after collusion with exporter need specific cogent evidence. In absence thereof it is merely dereliction of duties which can be proceeded in terms of Central Civil Services Rule, 1965. I observe that there is no evidence produced by the Department that appellant in any way has benefited himself due to the impugned exports by Shri Sajjan Kumar. The entire burden was of the Department to prove knowledge on the part of the appellant but there is no such evidence nor even for the fact that some consideration has gone to the appellant for endorsing the market report. In the given circumstances, it is merely negligence or dereliction of duties which without intention 12 Customs Appeal No. 52193 of 2019 [SM] cannot be called as collusion or abetment.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1