1998 (9) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Entry for the imported said car was filed on 4-1-1991. Benefit was allowed to the appellant on execution of a bond/undertaking :- (i) To produce a CCP from the DGFT Authorities within 15 days. (ii) Not to sell, transfer or give on loan or in any other manner part with the car. (iii) To inform the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise & Customs having jurisdiction over the place at which he is residing and was taking the car to. 2. In terms of the aforesaid bond, the appellant informed the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Udaipur, about his residential address and the place to which he was taking the car. It appears that the applied for obtaining the CCP to the DGFT Authorities on 17-1-1992 but the said author....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Lal Jain were asked to show cause to the Addl. Collector, Amritsar. 6. On adjudication the Addl. Collector, Amritsar has confiscated the car for contravention of the Section 111(d) for non-production of CCP and also on account of parting with the car, thereby violating a post condition attracting confiscation under Section 111(o) . The car has been confiscated by the adjudicating authority with an option to the appellant to redeem it on payment of fine of Rs. 35,000/-. He has also imposed the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant Bharat Kumar Rajawat. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on Chandu Lal Jain with whom the car has been found at the time of the visit of the officer by Jaipur Commissionerate. Benefit of notifica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Chandu Lal Jain was maintaining the car for the purpose of keeping it up. This action of Chandu Lal Jain will not in any manner amount to parting with the car on the part of the appellant Bharat Kumar Rajawat. This finding is also fortified by the lower appellate authority's findings of setting aside the penalty on Chandu Lal Jain as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate Shri K.K. Anand for the appellant Sh. Bharat Kumar Rajawat. We are therefore of the view that the benefit of Notification No. 258/90-Cus. cannot be retrenched since all conditions thereof are fully satisfied. Therefore the demand of duty on the car cannot be sustained. 9. Learned Advocate Shri K.K. Anand however has fairly conceded that the appellant Bharat Ku....