Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Upholds Customs Act Penalties for Misdeclaration & Overvaluation</h1> The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, on individuals associated with a CHA firm for overvaluation and ... Appeal - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Statement - Retracted but reaffirmed later on Issues Involved:1. Imposition of penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Allegations of overvaluation and misdeclaration of export goods.3. Violation of principles of natural justice.4. Liability of employees and agents of CHA firms.5. Confiscation of goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962.6. Procedural propriety in disposing of appeals at the stay stage.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Imposition of Penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962:- Shri Bhagwan Sippy: The appellant contended that he was merely an employee of the CHA firm and not a partner. The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lacs, which was challenged. The Tribunal found that there was no correlation between the goods stuffed in the container and the shipping bills, leading to the imposition of penalties.- Shri Mukesh Bhanushali: The appellant argued that the Commissioner passed an ex parte order without considering his request for adjournment, violating natural justice principles. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner recorded that Bhanushali failed to rebut allegations and did not file written submissions.- Shri Jayesh Gala: The appellant claimed no corroborative evidence against him and that the order was passed ex parte. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner found Gala involved in aiding and abetting the offense.- Shri Govind Sharma: The appellant argued that the order was passed ex parte and that the goods were neither prohibited nor dutiable. The Tribunal recorded that the Commissioner found Sharma liable for penal action under Section 114 for his role in the attempted fraudulent export.2. Allegations of Overvaluation and Misdeclaration of Export Goods:- The Tribunal highlighted the discrepancies in the quantity and quality of goods declared versus those found during re-examination. The goods were overvalued significantly, and the declared value did not match the procurement price, leading to the conclusion of fraudulent intent to obtain undue DEPB benefits.3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:- Shri Mukesh Bhanushali and Shri Jayesh Gala: Both appellants argued that the ex parte orders violated natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged these claims but emphasized the appellants' failure to respond to summons and show cause notices, thereby justifying the ex parte proceedings.4. Liability of Employees and Agents of CHA Firms:- Shri Bhagwan Sippy: The Tribunal noted that Sippy allowed his CHA license to be used by Gala without verifying the exporter, thus abetting the fraudulent export.- Shri Mukesh Bhanushali: Found to be associated with Gala in the clearance business, thereby participating in the fraudulent activities.5. Confiscation of Goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962:- The Tribunal confirmed that the goods were liable to confiscation due to misdeclaration of value and quantity, as supported by substantial evidence, including statements and re-examinations.6. Procedural Propriety in Disposing of Appeals at the Stay Stage:- Majority Opinion: The Tribunal, by majority, held that disposing of the appeals at the stay stage without notifying the revenue was inappropriate. The appeals should be decided only after proper notice and hearing on merits.- Member (Judicial): Proposed reducing the penalties and disposing of the appeals at the stay stage.- Member (Technical): Argued for pre-deposit of penalties and proper notice to the revenue before final disposal.Final Order:- The Tribunal ordered pre-deposit of Rs. 4 Lakhs each by Shri Jayesh Gala and Shri Govind Sharma, and Rs. 50,000/- each by Shri Bhagwan Sippy and Shri Mukesh Bhanushali within 8 weeks. Compliance would result in a waiver of the balance penalties, failing which the appeals would be dismissed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found