2015 (4) TMI 310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s interested in purchase of an imported vehicle. The appellant help in clearance through Customs of a vehicle 'Toyota Land Cruiser' imported by Shri Toparapu Narsaiah under Transfer of Residence Rules (TR) vide Bill of Entry dt. 22.9.2003, and arranged the sale of the vehicle to Shri Sunil Lulla. Later, it was found by CIU that the impugned vehicle was cleared by mis-declaring the year of manufacture to Customs as 1997 instead of the actual year of manufacture which is November 1999. It was alleged by the department that the vehicle was sold in violation of "no sale for 2 years" condition for import of cars under TR Rules. It was also alleged that the year of manufacture was wrongly declared to avail the higher depreciation on the impor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was not aware of the date of manufacture of the said car. Further, he was only involved in giving the vehicle on lease to Mr. Sunil Lulla. There was no physical sale by the importer and the vehicle continued to be registered in the name of the importer Mr. Toparapu Narsaiah for 2 years. Further, the vehicle was on hypothecation to Indian Overseas Bank for a loan of Rs. 19,00,000/- granted to Mr. Sunil Lulla, Managing Director of M/s. Eros Multimedia Ltd. According to her, the appellant cannot be held responsible for violation of post importation conditions which are fastened on the importer. 4.1. The next contention on the Ld. Counsel is that various judicial pronouncement have held that once a case is settled in the Settlement Commission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he deposit of duty made by Shri Sunil Lulla. Therefore he has treated Shri Sunil Lulla as the importer. In other words he has consented that Shri Sunil Lulla is entitled to file an application before the Settlement Commission, as an importer. The provisions of Section 127A(b) define a 'case', the provisions of Section 127F give exclusive jurisdiction to the Settlement Commission in relation to the case and Section 127J which provides that every order passed under Section 127C shall be conclusive- all lead to a reasonable conclusion that once a case has been decided in respect of the importer or the applicant by the Settlement commission, it is not open to Revenue to proceed against other co-noticees. I agree with the reliance placed on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fit of K.V.S.S. availed by the principal notice will not be available to such noticees". But the circumstances of the case at hand are that the car was illegally got sold from the importer to Shri Sunil Lulla through the goodwill of the appellant. In other words, there are no multiple causes of action and the total action of sale is a indivisible act. Therefore, the said judgment has to be appreciated in this sense. Further, the case of S.K. Colombowala (supra) relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Onkar S. Kanwar 2002 (145) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.) which held that "we have heard the parties. In our view, a reading of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Removal of Difficulties) Order shows that where a declaration had bee....