Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

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 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (9) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of M/s Om Udyog is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.218 & 220/2016 dated 2.3.2016 whereunder inter alia a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellant initially by the Order-in-Original dated 2.12.2014 has been sustained. 2. The brief facts are that :- (i) During the search conducted by Revenue - DRI, certain petroleum products viz. H.A. (Heavy Alckeys), Calcium Grease, lubricating oil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... imported falling under "illegal Traffic" in terms of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundry Movement) Rules, 2008 and would fall under Section 2(33) of Customs Act, 1962 as "prohibited goods", liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. (iv) The appellant Jeevan Jain, proprietor of M/s Om Udyog along with M/s Goyal Petrochem were issued Show Cau....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant and ld. DR Shri K. Poddar for the Revenue have been heard. 4. The main pleading of the appellant is that the finished goods did not belong to them. The department has not proved the relationship of the appellant with the subject goods. There was no statement recorded of the appellant proving the ownership of the appellant for the subject goods. The appellant, therefore, pleads that the pena....