TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 672
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h duty liability of Rs. 11,99,329 was discharged on ascertainment of assessable value of Rs. 7,19,166 applicable to manufacture in 1999 as declared in bill of entry and in possession of the appellant, Ms Marina J Mahi, from whom seizure was effected by officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on 11th July 2008, having been misdeclared by concealing evidence of manufacture in 2003. Further proceedings culminated in order of the original authority demanding differential duty of Rs. 18,64,198, along with offer enabling redemption of the confiscated vehicle on payment of fine of Rs. 10,00,000, and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 on the appellant; besides, it was also stipulated that all the liabilities enumerated therein would be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the vehicle had been leased from the original importer under agreement dated 30th January 2004 committing to payment of Rs. 69,000 for 36 months with option to acquire the vehicle thereafter. It is also on record that the importer had availed loan of Rs. 30,00,000 from M/s ICICI Bank in January 2004 against vehicle as security in which the appellant, as possessor of the vehicle, was incorporated as co-applicant. Further, it is on record that, M/s Lakozy Pvt Ltd, with expert knowledge of such vehicles, had reported certain peculiarities in the placement of the plate bearing chassis number while advising that year of manufacture and, other details, could be obtained through M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, the Indian affiliate of the ove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....back lease agreements was a form of transfer in contravention of the restriction on sale of vehicles imported by persons returning from abroad. She points out that the conditions stipulated for such imports were required to be strictly enforced. The findings of the original authority on the role of the appellant was reiterated during the course of the hearing. 6. The appellant has not contested the findings of the original authority, as upheld by the first appellate authority, that the plate bearing chassis number had been tampered with intent to evade duties of customs by misrepresenting the age of the vehicle. We, therefore, forbear from examining the evidences in support of the misdeclaration and restrict the scope of this proceeding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in re KL Johar & Company and the deeming of such transaction as 'sale' by amendment of Constitution of India for coverage under sales tax law. The expression employed in the restriction is specific to 'sale' which lease transactions cannot be equated with. Hence, the appellant cannot be held liable as a willful participant in breaching conditions of import. Consequently, the penalty on the appellant does not sustain. 9. There is also no doubt that the differential duty confirmed by the lower authorities under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot, in the light of decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, be fastened on the appellant as a substitute for the importer. 10. The vehicle....