Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Tribunal overturns bank account seizure order lacking evidence of smuggling proceeds. Appeal allowed, investigation continues.

        NAYASA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (EXPORTS), NHAVA SHEVA

        NAYASA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (EXPORTS), NHAVA SHEVA - 2010 (259) E.L.T. 88 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:
        1. Legality of extending the time limit for issuing a show-cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
        2. Validity of freezing the bank account of the exporter.
        3. Determination of whether the funds in the bank account are the sale proceeds of smuggled goods.

        Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Legality of Extending the Time Limit for Issuing a Show-Cause Notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962:
        The primary issue revolves around whether the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) was justified in extending the time limit for issuing a show-cause notice by another six months under the proviso of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued that there was no sufficient cause for such an extension and that the Commissioner failed to judiciously consider their submissions. The relevant legal provisions, including Section 110(1) and (2), Section 113, Section 121, and Section 124 of the Customs Act, were examined to determine the legality of the extension.

        The Tribunal noted that while Section 110(1) allows the proper officer to seize goods if they are believed to be liable to confiscation, the proviso to Section 110(2) requires 'sufficient cause being shown' for extending the time limit for issuing a show-cause notice. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner must provide a definite and cogent reason for such an extension, which was not adequately demonstrated in this case.

        2. Validity of Freezing the Bank Account of the Exporter:
        The appellants contended that the freezing of their bank account by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was not justified and lacked legal basis. They argued that the funds in the bank account were foreign remittances against exports and not proceeds from the sale of smuggled goods. The Tribunal considered various case laws, including Vikas Gumbar v. UOI, Raghuram Grah Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, and Anil Kumar Mehensaria v. C.C. Port, which highlighted that freezing bank accounts without proper legal authority is not permissible.

        The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner failed to ascertain whether the funds in the bank account were indeed the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The Tribunal also noted that excess duty drawback could be recovered under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties, and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, and not by freezing the bank account under Section 110 of the Customs Act.

        3. Determination of Whether the Funds in the Bank Account are the Sale Proceeds of Smuggled Goods:
        The Tribunal examined whether the funds in the bank account could be considered the sale proceeds of smuggled goods under Section 121 of the Customs Act. The investigation revealed that the appellants had exported goods with inflated values to claim higher export incentives. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the funds in the bank account were the sale proceeds of smuggled goods.

        The Tribunal emphasized that if the funds were the actual sale proceeds of the exported goods, there would be no case of overvaluation. Conversely, if the funds were not the actual sale proceeds, the seizure of the bank account would be illegal. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner failed to show sufficient cause for extending the seizure of the bank account.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal set aside the impugned order extending the seizure of the bank account by six months for issuing a show-cause notice, stating that the extension was not justified without a clear determination of whether the funds were the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, while clarifying that the investigation could continue, and a show-cause notice could be issued in accordance with the law.

        Pronouncement:
        The judgment was pronounced in court on 30-7-2010.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found