TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT Upholds Duty Demand & Penalties for Goods Misdeclaration</h1> <h3>METAL RECYCLING INDUSTRY Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT-I</h3> METAL RECYCLING INDUSTRY Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT-I - 2009 (246) E.L.T. 281 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:1. Misdeclaration of goods in quality and valuation2. Duty confirmation and penalty imposition3. Confiscation of goods and truck4. Quantum of redemption fine and penaltyAnalysis:1. The case involved a truck loaded with mixed brass, zinc, and lead scrap, declared as 192 bags of mixed brass scrap. The actual contents were found to be misdeclared, with varying quantities and values. The appellant admitted the misdeclaration and offered to pay the duty shortfall. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,49,601/-, imposed penalties on the firm and a partner, and allowed redemption of goods and truck on payment of fines.2. The appellant did not dispute the misdeclaration but contested the valuation of zinc scrap. The Tribunal found the valuation based on bill entries and statements to be correct, confirming the duty demand. The appellant's argument of a bona fide mistake in valuation was rejected due to lack of evidence, indicating mala fide intentions. The Tribunal upheld the redemption fine and penalties imposed.3. The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the partner, considering the penalty already imposed on the firm. Regarding the confiscation of the truck, it was noted that the driver or owner cannot be held responsible for verifying the accuracy of the invoice contents. As no evidence showed their knowledge of misdeclaration, the confiscation was deemed unjustified, and the appeal for confiscation was allowed.4. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the firm, upheld the redemption fine and penalties, set aside the penalty on the partner, and allowed the appeal for the confiscation of the truck. The judgments were pronounced on 27-2-2009 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, with Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri B.S.V. Murthy as judges.
TaxTMI 