TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 voids penalty, returns vehicle, upholds confiscation, and disposes of appeals</h1> The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on Saha due to lack of corroborative evidence, confirmed ownership of the vehicle in favor of Kundu, and ... Penalty - Evidence Issues: Confiscation of synthetic fabrics, personal penalty imposition, ownership of the vehicle, validity of show cause notice issuance timeline.Confiscation of Synthetic Fabrics:The appeals were filed against the order of the Collector of Customs confiscating synthetic fabrics and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant, Shri Sambhu Saha. The case involved the seizure of synthetic fabrics from a vehicle driven by Shri Pradip Dey, who claimed that Saha directed him to carry the goods. The only evidence against Saha was the confessional statement of Dey, a co-accused. The Tribunal held that the statement should be corroborated by independent evidence for the penalty to be valid. As no such corroboration existed, the penalty on Saha was set aside.Ownership of the Vehicle:Regarding the ownership of the vehicle in question, Shri Jiban Kundu claimed ownership, which was contested by the authorities. However, a document presented indicated that Kundu had taken possession of the vehicle, leading to the acceptance of his ownership. The vehicle was released provisionally to Kundu on executing a bond, confirming his ownership.Validity of Show Cause Notice Issuance Timeline:The appellant, Shri Jiban Kundu, argued that the vehicle should not be liable for confiscation as the show cause notice was served to him six months after the seizure, exceeding the statutory timeline. Citing legal precedent and the Customs Act, it was contended that if the notice is not served within six months, the vehicle should be returned. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, setting aside the confiscation of the vehicle and ordering its return to Kundu. The confiscation of the synthetic fabrics was confirmed, as Kundu was not implicated in their transportation.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on Saha due to lack of corroborative evidence, confirmed the ownership of the vehicle in favor of Kundu, and ordered the return of the vehicle based on the delayed issuance of the show cause notice. The confiscation of the synthetic fabrics was upheld, concluding the disposal of the appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
