Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1780/2009 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1780 of 2009
======================================
COMMISSIONER
OF CUSTOM - Appellant
Versus
SIYARAM
METALS PVT LTD - Opponent
======================================
Appearance
:
MS
AMEE YAJNIK for Appellant.
None for
Opponent.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 22/09/2010
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)
In
this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act),
the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla has challenged the order dated
29.04.2008 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal (the Tribunal), proposing the following four questions
stated to be substantial questions of law for the determination by
this Court :-
Whether,
in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Hon’ble
Tribunal was justified in holding that confiscation of the goods
under Section 111 (m) and imposition of penalty under Section 112
(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 upon the respondent importer was
neither justified nor warranted despite there being undisputed
misdeclaration and violation of the provisions of the Customs Act,
1962 ?
Whether,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, when there was
undisputed misdeclaration and misdescription of the imported goods
in the Bill of Entry filed by the respondent importer, is the
Hon’ble Tribunal justified in setting aside the confiscation of the
goods and imposition of penalty rendered on account of violation of
provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 ?
Whether,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is
justified in passing the impugned judgment and order, without
assigning proper reasons and by coming to a conclusion that the
expert’s opinion, in the facts of the case, was otherwise though the
expert’s opinion was in favour of the appellant Department ?
Whether,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is
justified in passing the impugned judgment and order, without
assigning proper reasons and without coming to specific finding as
to how the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Customs,
Kandla dated 04.02.2004 deserves to be interfered with in the
appeal, by substituting the findings of adjudicating authority
arrived at in the order in original ?
The
respondent is a 100% export oriented unit registered with
manufacture and export of Recycled
Metal Scrap Ingots and Metal Alloys etc. The respondent filed two
bills of entries for import of goods declared as Transformer
Scrap at the rate of US $ 150 PMT. According to the Revenue, the
declared goods were not transformer scrap but were old used
transformers. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent for
enhancement of value and confiscation of the goods.
Vide
order dated 23.01.2004, the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla ordered
confiscation of the goods imported by the respondent under the Bills
of Entry along with penalty and fine. Being aggrieved, the
respondent preferred appeal before the Tribunal which came to be
allowed by the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the
respondent was permitted to import used old and damaged
transformers, which was nothing but transformer scrap, that it was
not the case of the Revenue that new transformers or transformers in
usable condition were imported by the respondent. That no demand of
duty was confirmed against the respondent as they were eligible to
import old / used / damaged transformers.
Heard
Ms. Amee
Yajnik, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue.
Learned Counsel Ms. Yajnik has assailed the impugned order of the
Tribunal by reiterating the reasoning adopted by the Adjudicating
Authority. It is an accepted position
that in the
case of Commissioner of Customs V/s. Royal Recycling Industries,
which involved similar facts, the Revenue had challenged the order
of the Tribunal before this Court in Tax Appeal No.450 of 2009 and
vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2010, this Court dismissed the
appeal holding that the appeal does not give rise to any question of
law.
In
the circumstances, for the reasons stated in the order dated
31.03.2010 passed by this Court in the case of Commissioner
of Customs V/s. Royal Recycling Industries, Tax Appeal No.450 of
2009, this appeal is also dismissed in absence of any question of
law.
Sd/-
[K. A. PUJ, J.]
Sd/-
[HARSHA DEVANI,
J.]
Savariya
Top