Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after the appellants obtained satisfaction and immunity under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, the Commissioner could still proceed with confiscation, redemption fine, and consequential recovery measures in relation to the same show cause notice.
Analysis: The appellants had settled the duty liability under the scheme and were granted immunity on payment of the amount determined by the designated authority. The later order proceeded to confiscate goods that had already been released and exported, and to impose redemption fine and proceed against the bank guarantee. The tribunal followed its earlier view that once settlement under the scheme is obtained, the subsequent order imposing fine and penalty does not survive.
Conclusion: The confiscation order and the consequential fine and recovery directions could not be sustained.