2005 (3) TMI 694

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reinafter referred to as the co-applicants). BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2. The applicants were engaged in the activities of horse racing and breeding. For this purpose they imported stallions and broodmares from time to time. Intelligence was received by the DRI that the applicant had imported horses and evaded customs duty by resorting to under valuation. Out of 17 horses imported, the applicant admitted before the DRI the value of 7 horses. Investigations revealed that the prices declared at the time of customs clearance were incorrect. 3. A show cause notice dated 26-12-2003 was issued by the DRI, Mumbai demanding customs duty amounting to Rs. 27,21,254/-. The applicant had deposited Rs. 28,93,188/- during the investigati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h, Chennai in the case of M/s. Kehelan Stud Live Stock and Agriculture Farm, Bangalore & Others [2005 (184) E.L.T. 328 (Sett. Comm.)] and Admission-cum-Final Order F. No. 218/Cus/05-SC(PB), dated 7-1-2005 of the Principal Bench in the case of M/s. Gee Stud Farm Pvt. Ltd. & Others. 7. The Revenue was represented by S/Shri N.V. Rane, S.I.O and D.K.S. Chauhan, I.O. The Revenue opposed the grant of immunities to the applicant as the disclosure made is not full and true. 8. The Bench has gone through the case records and the oral and written submissions made by the applicant and the Revenue. The opposition of the Revenue to immunities on the ground of disclosure does not stand to reason when the applicant had admitted the entire ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....did derive financial accommodation by not paying the duty due at the time of importation. This Bench has been taking a consistent view that where financial accommodation is derived by an applicant having mala fide intention total immunity from interest should not be given. In the instant case the transaction values of the horses were very much known to the applicant importer which he sought to hide. The Supreme Court in Sony India Ltd. case reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 385 (SC) have made it clear that penalty and interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are justified where the actions of the appellant are mala fide in nature. The ratio of this decision was adopted in Final Order No. 71/CEX/2004, dated 10-11-200....