Case Law Research

CESTAT Ahmedabad : Shri Jawandamal Dhannamal Vs. Commissioner of CUSTOMS (Appeals) -JAMNAGAR : 10th March, 2017


CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
O-20, New Mental Hospital Compound, Meghani Nagar,
West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad 380 014

Appeal No.  : C/356/2010
Arising out of OIA-88/COMMR-A-/JMN/2010 dt 09/06/2010 passed by the Commissioner of CUSTOMS (Appeals) -JAMNAGAR

Shri Jawandamal Dhannamal
Appellant(s)

Vs.

Commissioner of CUSTOMS (Appeals) -JAMNAGAR
Respondent(s)

Represented by
For Applicant(s) : None
For Respondent(s) : Shri L Patra, Authorised Representative

CORAM :
Dr D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 10/03/2017


ORDER NO. A/10607 / 2017

Per : Dr D.M. Misra,

None present for the appellant. Heard the Ld AR for the Revenue.


2. I find that in the proceeding before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant challenged the penalty and redemption fine. Considering the evidences and various circumstances of the case, the Ld Commissioner has reduced the redemption fine to Rs 60,000/- and penalty to Rs 50,000/-. The Ld Commissioner (Appeals) at Para 5.8 observed as follows:

Now, dealing with the quantum of fine and penalty imposed on the appellant importer in the impugned order, I have already found in the foregoing paras that the order of the adjudicating authority for confiscation of 85.170 kgs of scrap v/s Rs 13,16,728/- under Section 119 of the Act does not survive in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the plea of the appellant for lowering the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed in the impugned order crave for some consideration. Having regard to the totality of the attendant facts and he gravity of offence committed by the appellant and also keeping in view that confiscation of HMS v/a Rs 13,16,728/- ordered by the adjudicating authority was found to be not sustainable, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met if the redemption fine and penalty is reduced and re-fixed at Rs 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) and Rs 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) respectively and I order so.


3. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who after considering the circumstances has substantially reduced the redemption and penalty and no additional circumstances brought on record warranting further reduction. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit, accordingly dismissed.


(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)


(D.M. Misra)
Member (Judicial)


swami
2

Last modified on Sunday, 19 March 2017 10:46

Additional Info

  • Date Range: Friday, 10 March 2017
  • Court/Authority: CESTAT
  • Tax Type: Customs duty
  • Petitioner/Appellant: Shri Jawandamal Dhannamal Vs. Commissioner of CUSTOMS (Appeals) -JAMNAGAR
  • Respondent: Shri Jawandamal Dhannamal Vs. Commissioner of CUSTOMS (Appeals) -JAMNAGAR
  • Appl no. or Appl year: Appeal No. : C/356/2010
  • Supreme Court Location: Delhi
  • CESTAT Location: Ahmedabad
  • AAR Location: Delhi
  • Authority: Supreme Court

A New Feature :

Advanced Case Law Search

 

7th April, 2016

The “Advanced Case Law Search” feature in TaxQuotient  enables search on separate parameters such as Court, Tax Type, Date (from & to Range), appellant, respondent and even keywords. This helps you in locating case law you are searching for swiftly.

TIP: #1 : If you want to view the latest cases, just enter the start and end dates keeping all other boxes blank. You will get a list of all available indirect tax cases during that period.

TIP # 2 : Please keep the date range (start to end date) for upto 6 months.

TIP # 3 : Don't forget to reset the search to clear the earlier results before a new search.

Click to enter Advanced Case Law Search

 GST Bill passed by Parliament

 

 

 

The 122nd Constitution Amendment Bill introduced in Parliament in December 2014 has been passed by the Rajya Sabha and now also by the Lok Sabha with the amendments.  Now the Bill must get ratified by at least half the number of 31 State Legislatures which means 16 States and then finally get the approval from the President.

Thereafter the GST Council has to be set up which will determine the GST design at the granular level. This will include the structure of GST including scope of CGST, SGST and IGST, the taxes subsumed, the items/commodities covered and other critical aspects such as the threshold limits for taxability, exemptions, and several other parameters critical for an ideal  GST.

Further, for the GST to operate smoothly, the taxes paid on goods and services at every stage in the value chain needs to be tracked. This requires an IT infrastructure which will track the transactions and taxes paid and form the back-bone of GST. Reportedly considerable work has been already done on it, nevertheless it will need changes to correctly reflect the GST Law proposed by the GST Council and accepted by the Central & State Legislatures.

Last but not the least,  the tax authorities and other stakeholders who will implement the GST need to be trained for a smooth introduction.

Seven questions to know if you 

are paying taxes 

correctly?

If you are the CFO or the Tax Head you ought to read this. Click Here

CESTAT Updates

June- July 2016

 

Brief update on CESTAT judgements passed during June 2016 to July 2016. Please note this update is not a summary of the cases but only leads on important issues decided. The links to the judgments are also provided for the full text.

Click here for update

Our Main Services 

in Indirect Taxes

 

  • Business structuring and tax planning
  • Review of end-to-end business processes for indirect taxes
  • Strategy to prevent litigation, representation and litigation support
  • Tax compliance and tax control framework
  • Support on specific issues
Go to top