Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Commissioner Of Customs-Kandla vs Mundra International Container ... on 28 February, 2017 cites

M/S. Aspinwall & Co. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Trichy on 20 April, 2001

Hence, no penalty can be fastened on the exporter-appellant. It is his contention that the appellant was not aware of the loading of the goods by the Shipping Line without LEO. It is his contention that the ld. Commissioner referring to Section 147 of the Customs Act has erred in observing that since the CHA was liable, therefore, appellant was also liable for penalty. It is his contention that in the cases of Aspinwall & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,Trichy  2001 (132) ELT I44 (Tr-Chennai) later upheld by the Honble Apex Court reported as Commissioner of Central Excise,Trichy Vs. Aspinwall & Co. 2002 (142) ELT A80 (SC) and Gajanan B Sudrik  2014 (304) ELT 159 (Tri-Mumbai), it has been held that the CHA is the Power of Attorney Holder of the appellant and hence there exists no master and servant relationship between the CHA and Exporter, accordingly Section 147 of the Act, is not applicable. It is his contention that since there is no evidence indicating the involvement of the appellant in the sail of the vessel without LEO, therefore, penalty cannot be imposed on them under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1