2021 (11) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alongwith connected appeal No. C/61 of 2010 filed by Ms. Jyotsna Suri and C/62 of 2010 filed by Ms. Madhav Sikka. When the matter was called, learned Counsel submits that these three appeals are squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canon India which held that officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) are not competent officers to issue show cause notices demanding duty under Section 28 (4) of the Customs Act. In their case, the show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) who is similarly placed and hence is not competent to issue the show cause notice. Consequently, the impugned order needs to be set aside. The learned Departmental Representative said that he s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s issued to the applicant which culminated in the issue of the impugned order, whereby the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) confiscated the aircraft under Section 111 (o) and gave an option to redeem the same after paying Rs. 7 crore as redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act. He further ordered that as the aircraft was released provisionally on execution of the bank guarantee, the bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 7 crore may be invoked to recover the redemption fine. Additionally, he also confirmed the differential duty and imposed penalties. The bank guarantee has not been invoked to recover the redemption fine from the appellant so far as the appeal is pending before this Bench. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant sub....