TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r was transferred to the Principal Bench at Delhi and the matter was listed on 31-1-2011 for disposal of the Misc. application. Therefore, on 31-1-2011 the matter was placed before the Hon'ble President and on the same day the Hon'ble President directed to list matter before this Bench at New Delhi and matter was fixed for today i.e. 22nd February, 2011 for final disposal. As the matter has already been listed for today for final disposal, Misc. application for pre-poning of date of hearing has become infructuous therefore the same is disposed of accordingly. 3. Now we take up the appeal for final disposal. 4. This appeal was heard by the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal and was dismissed vide order dated 9-11-2009. Therefore, the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting old and used goods was not produced and for the reason that the value was found to be mis-declared. The goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine under Section 125 and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on 8-9-2008. This order was made on file just showing the enhanced value and the fine and penalty to be paid. The enhanced value, fine and penalty were orally communicated to the Appellant. Here it is pertinent to mention that such a practice is common because it is administratively not feasible to issue long orders on assessment of each and every disputed Bill of Entry. No reasons were recorded or communicated to the party or to the Commissioner, who is a reviewing authority for such orders unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cessary information as is evident from the facts unearthed by DRI later. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal by setting aside the adjudication order directing that this matter should be decided along with the matter under SCN issued after unearthing the fraud. 7. In separate proceedings the appellants moved the High Court of Kolkata praying for a stay on proceedings in the SCN issued, bringing out the new facts that came to light during detailed examination conducted by DRI, till a decision is taken on the order impugned under this proceeding. Further proceedings in the matter of that SCN remains stayed. 8. The appellants are challenging the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) on two grounds :- (a) that the appeal filed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner hence, the order has been communicated to the Commissioner on 11-9-2008. Learned Advocate for the Revenue submits the order of adjudication was issued only on 24-2-2009 and on the basis of that order the Commissioner has reviewed the adjudication order and, therefore, filed an appeal within three months from the date of the order which is within time. 11. It is a settled position that assessment of Bill of Entry, without giving any reasons, was an appealable order. But the matter could not have been decided in appeal because the order did not give the reasons for the order. The issue of a reasoned order got delayed because the documents were withdrawn for investigation by DRI. There cannot be any argument that the delay in issuing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter and accepting the declaration without any examination of goods. However it cannot be argued that examination is not relevant. It cannot be argued that any level of trust placed on the importer creates an estoppel against the department in the matter of recovery of duties due to the Government. The only limitation in taking such action is the time limit prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act for issue of notices in cases involving fraud which time limit is five year from the date of payment of duty and such notice is already issued. The issue involved in this case is that the examination done for passing the cryptic order dated 8-9-2008 was not proper. So the view of the Commissioner that the order dated 8-9-2008 is not legal and....