TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in September 2012 noticed an internet advertisement for the sale of Harley Davidson motor bike and as per the document available with the vehicle, the said motor vehicle was imported under Bill of Entry No. 590451 dated 02.06.2009 and it was registered in Karnataka under Reg. No. KA-01-EM-4433. After negotiation and verifying the documents pertaining to the bike, appellant purchased the same. Thereafter on 05.05.2013, officers from the respondent came to the appellant s house and directed the appellant to produce the motor bike and the documents pertaining to the said vehicle. After verifying the documents the Department alleged illegality in import and the motor bike was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on very same d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Forty Nine only) with applicable interest and other charges. In addition to that, the respondent also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Commissioner vide order dated 13.11.2014 rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the motor bike has suffered mandatory Customs duty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.1. He further submitted that as per the investigation made by the Department from Mumbai Customs authority, the Bill of Entry of the same No. was filed on 02.06.2008 and the importer was M/s. Sony Enterprises in the said Bill of Entry and they have imported the motor cycle parts including engine by declaring its value as Rs. 16,594/- (Rupees Sixteen Five Hundred and Ninety Four only) and the same was assessed as having value of Rs. 20,949/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Nine only) and the consignment was filed through a Custom House Agent authorized by Mumbai Customs and the same was cleared on 04.06.2008. The said goods were supplied by M/s. Professional General Trading in contracting, Kuwait. The investigating officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty imposed on the appellant is unsustainable since the impugned order has not fulfilled the clause under Section 112 to impose penalty and no reason has been given for imposing the penalty on the appellant as the appellant has not breached any law and has purchased the vehicle in a bonafide belief that the seller is the owner of the vehicle. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and in support of his submission he relied upon the following authorities: a) Subhash Jain Vs. State 2016 (333) E.L.T. 51 (Del.) b) Rajaram Bohra Vs. Union of India 2015 (322) E.L.T. 337 (Cal.) c) CC, Bangalore Vs. T.V. Mohammed 2014 (304) E.L.T. 73 (Kar.) 5. We have considered the vari....