Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs Stone man Marble Industries and others [Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 4371 -4383 of 2004
Date of Judgement/Order : 21/01/2011
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs Stone man Marble Industries and others [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 21 Jan 2011]

Apex Court do find some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue that a standard formula cannot be laid down for imposition of redemption fine and penalty under the aforenoted provisions of the Act and each case has to be examined on its own facts but when a final fact finding body returns a finding that the facts obtaining in each of the cases before it are similar, and such finding is not questioned, levy of redemption fine or penalty uniformly in all such cases cannot be construed as laying down an absolute formula, which is the case here. We are convinced that the Revenue did not discharge its burden under Section 130A of the Act in as much as it did not specifically challenge the Revenue’s aforestated finding as being perverse. In this view of the matter, the High Court was justified in declining to issue direction to the Tribunal to make a reference under Section 130A of the Act.

_________________________________

FELL TEXT OF THE JUDGEMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:-

Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Stone man Marble Industries & Ors.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

0 Comments

  1. MRkGANDHI says:

    Our entire judicial system suffers from confusion and make the procedure cumbersome. It is not clear when the import is made against the licensing requirement, while imposing penalty they should take into only the profit margins; per se the adjudicating authority should look at the conduct whether the individuals are willfully violating the provision or inadvertently violating the provision. The intention should be ascertained broadly and impose substantial amounts as penalty and even put the people behind the bars; so that others fear to tread the same path.

    Even the practices adopted by the customs authorities are different at different ports; WHEN SECOND HAND MACHINERY IS IMPORTED WHILE AT SOME PORT THEY EXAMINE THE CARGO FIRST AND ASSESS LATER IN SOME PORTS THE PROCEDURE IS CONVERSE

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031