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>Appeal allowed against Tribunal's decision on confiscation & penalty reversal. High Court upholds ruling on Customs Act.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Versus Orchid Chemicals & Pharma Ltd.</h3> The appeal against the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision on confiscation and penalty reversal was allowed by the High Court. ... Confiscation - Import of hazardous chemicals - Held that:- Tribunal, on appreciating the facts has found that the provision of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3(2) and 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, has no manner of application. - Therefore, the alleged admission cannot be accepted to change the law. Hence, there is no element of law involved in the appeal. - Decided against Revenue. Issues:Appeal against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, regarding confiscation and penalty reversal under the Customs Act, 1962 and Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.Analysis:The appeal was pending since 2007 for admission and challenged the Tribunal's decision on confiscation and penalty reversal. The Tribunal found that Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with Rule 3(2) and 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 did not apply to the case. The Tribunal noted that the Customs Authorities allowed import and warehousing of goods before being aware of the notification requiring prior intimation. The appellants also complied with hazardous chemical rules. The Tribunal concluded that there was no deliberate violation of the notification and that the Commissioner's order invoking Section 111(d) along with Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the FTDR Act was incorrect. The Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, setting aside the impugned order.The appellant's counsel argued based on a document dated 1-4-2004, claiming an admission of fact justifying the steps taken under the law. However, the Court disagreed, stating that the provision of law in question was correctly interpreted by the Tribunal, rendering the alleged admission irrelevant. Consequently, the Court found no legal basis for the appeal and dismissed it without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
