Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

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 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2004 (2) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [Order]. -  Heard both sides. It is the case of the appellants that she was the owner of the vessel in which smuggled goods were found but since she had no knowledge of the smuggling, the vessel should not have been confiscated. Reliance is also placed on the finding of the Adjudicating Commissioner that the appellant was not found liable for penalty. The learned Advocate appearing for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the fact that the Commissioner has given a categorical finding in Para 4(b) of the order-in-original that the entire episode of smuggling of the foreign exchange in the impugned vessel was "with the knowledge and consent of master of the vessel." He also draws attention to the provision of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 justifying confiscation of the vessel. 3. After hearing bot....