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

        <h1>Tribunal: Time Frame Directive, Appellant Guilty of Conspiracy & Violations</h1> <h3>M/s. Leo Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi</h3> M/s. Leo Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1750 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Whether the time frame prescribed in Regulation 20(5) of CBLR, 2013 is mandatory or directory.2. Whether the findings of the adjudicating authorities on the merits of the case were justified.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Time Frame Prescribed in Regulation 20(5) of CBLR, 2013:The appellant argued that the findings about the violation of Regulations of CBLR 2018/2013 should be set aside on the ground of limitation alone, as the enquiry report was submitted after the expiry of 90 days from the issuance of the show cause notice. The appellant claimed that the delay in submitting the enquiry report violated Regulation 20(5) of CBLR, 2013. However, the tribunal observed that the Commissioner had considered the plea of limitation and noted that Mr. Sanjeev Maggu was deliberately buying time to disable the Directorate from unearthing the modus operandi and recovering the Customs duty. The tribunal emphasized that the intention of the legislature, the nature of the statute, and the consequences of construing the time frame as mandatory or directory must be considered. It was concluded that the time frame prescribed in Regulation 20(5) is directory, not mandatory. The tribunal noted that the purpose of the time limit is to ensure prompt action and avoid undue delay, but it should not be so strictly adhered to that it results in declaring the initiation of action invalid, especially in cases involving serious lapses or fraud. The tribunal drew support from various judgments, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in Govindlal Chhaganlal Vs. Agriculture Produce Market Committee and Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank, which emphasized that procedural time limits should be considered directory unless non-compliance causes prejudice. Therefore, the non-compliance with the 90-day time frame in this case did not vitiate the action taken against the appellant.2. Findings on the Merits of the Case:The tribunal examined the merits of the case based on the documents and statements recovered during the search of the residential and office premises of the appellant and associated firms. The evidence included statements from various individuals, including warehouse keepers, CHA company representatives, and others involved in the alleged illegal activities. These statements corroborated that Shri Sanjeev Maggu, despite being a Customs Broker, concealed his identity and projected himself as the owner of fictitious companies to divert warehoused goods to the domestic market without paying customs duty. The statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were considered admissible evidence, and there was no apparent retraction or rebuttal of these statements by the appellant. The tribunal held that the adjudicating authorities were justified in denying the opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses and in finding the appellant guilty of hatching a conspiracy for the clandestine removal of warehoused goods from public bonded warehouses to the domestic market without payment of customs duty. The tribunal concluded that the appellant had committed forgery of documents for this purpose, and the legal objections raised by the appellant were not sustainable due to the misrepresentation, fraud, and forgery involved.Conclusion:The tribunal found no infirmity in the order under challenge, which confirmed the violation of Regulations 10 (d), (g), and (q) of CBLR 2018/ Regulations 11 (d), (g), and (o) of CBLR, 2013 by the appellant. The cancellation of the appellant's license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of a penalty were held to be sustainable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found