Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

        -

        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 reduces penalties under Customs Act citing lack of findings, lowers penalties significantly</h1> <h3>Tavinder Obhan Versus Commissioner of Customs, Import-I, Mumbai</h3> Tavinder Obhan Versus Commissioner of Customs, Import-I, Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation.2. Applicability of Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 to imports.3. Comparison of penalties imposed by the Settlement Commission and the Commissioner.4. Role and involvement of the appellant in the alleged undervaluation and evasion of customs duty.5. Validity of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.6. Appropriateness of penalties imposed on the appellant.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation:The appellant argued that the show cause notice was issued after five years from the date of import, making it barred by limitation. The Bill of Entry was dated 27-11-2006, and the show cause notice was issued on 02-07-2012. The appellant relied on various judgments, including Bhatinda District Co-Op Milk P. Union Ltd [2007(217) ELT 325(SC)], Hari Concast (P) Ltd. [2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H)], and Swastik Wires [2008 (231) ELT 448(T)].2. Applicability of Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 to imports:The appellant contended that Section 114AA applies to exports and not imports, citing the decision in Sri Krishna Sounds and Lighting [2019(370) ELT 594(T)].3. Comparison of penalties imposed by the Settlement Commission and the Commissioner:The appellant highlighted that the penalties imposed by the Settlement Commission on M/s. Kandla Cargo Handlers and Shri Bajranglal G. Agarwal were significantly lower (Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively) compared to the penalties imposed on the appellant (Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- under Sections 114AA and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively).4. Role and involvement of the appellant in the alleged undervaluation and evasion of customs duty:The Commissioner's order noted that the appellant, along with other noticees, was involved in undervaluing cranes and suppressing freight charges to evade customs duty. The investigation revealed that the appellant facilitated the import of cranes by providing manipulated invoices and suppressing actual transaction values. The Commissioner found that the appellant played a significant role in the undervaluation and evasion of customs duty.5. Validity of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:The appellant argued that his statements were recorded under duress and were retracted. However, the Commissioner relied on precedents where statements recorded under Section 108, even if retracted, were considered binding. The Commissioner cited various judgments, including Surjeet Singh Chhabra V/s Union of India (1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC)) and Assistant Commissioner of C.Ex, Rajamundry Vs Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. (2000 (120) E.LT 280 (S.C)), to support the validity of the statements.6. Appropriateness of penalties imposed on the appellant:The Tribunal found that the impugned order lacked a clear-cut finding against the appellant regarding his role in facilitating the suppression of value. The Tribunal noted that the penalties imposed on M/s. Kandla Cargo Handlers and Shri Bajranglal G. Agarwal by the Settlement Commission were significantly lower. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,000/- and under Section 114AA from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.Conclusion:The Tribunal modified the impugned order by significantly reducing the penalties imposed on the appellant, considering the lack of clear findings against him and the lower penalties imposed on other noticees by the Settlement Commission. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found