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>Tribunal Decision Upheld in Customs Case Alleging Fictitious Company for Salt Export</h1> <h3>Commissioner Versus Santhosh Pandurang Patil</h3> Commissioner Versus Santhosh Pandurang Patil - 2014 (306) E.L.T. A66 (Mad.) Issues:Alleged creation of fictitious company for exporting common salt, boosting its value for ineligible drawback amount, confession statement of co-accused, setting aside penalty based on co-accused statement, interpretation of confession in customs cases.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the appeal against Final Order No. 1163 of 2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The Department contended that the first respondent, with Jayakumar Nair, created a fictitious company to export common salt under the name 'Organic G-Salt,' boosting its value to claim an ineligible drawback amount. A show cause notice was issued, and Jayakumar Nair's confession implicated the first respondent. The Commissioner of Appeals upheld the demand, which was challenged before the Tribunal in the present appeal.The substantial question of law settled for consideration was whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty based on the co-accused's statement, citing precedent from the Apex Court and various Tribunal benches. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal, emphasizing the confession and the upheld demand. Conversely, the first respondent's counsel contended that a co-accused's confession is not binding in customs cases, and no reliable documents connected the first respondent to the alleged activities.The appellant relied on the Naresh J. Sukhawani case, asserting the importance of the co-accused's confession as substantive evidence. However, the first respondent's counsel referenced the Union of India v. Bal Mukund case, highlighting that a co-accused's confession alone cannot decide charges against others. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and legal positions, rejected the Department's claim, leading the Court to dismiss the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.Ultimately, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the confession alone was insufficient to implicate the first respondent in the alleged offenses. The judgment concluded that the appeal lacked substance, warranting dismissal without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
