TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../86211/2019 Manish Dhirajlal Barot Appellant 4 C/86436/2019 Chitalia Logistics P Ltd Appellant 5 C/86437/2019 Harshwardhan Thakur Appellant 6 1.2 By the impugned order Commissioner has held as follow: "82 In respect of the Importer namely M/s Amit Enterprise i) The goods imported vide Bill of entry No 9278934, 9278938, 9278942, 9278944, 9278946 and 9278948 all dated 12.04.2017 value redetermined at Rs. 19,17,873/-, Rs. 44,16,744/-, Rs. 26,00,401/-, Rs. 22,98,117/-, Rs. 20,49,352 and Rs. 40,70,282/- (Total amounting to Rs. 1,73,52,769/-) be confiscated under Section 111(d), 111(f), (l) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. ii) I allow Redemption of the goods imported vide 9278934, 9278938, 9278942, 9278944, 9278946 and 9278948 all dated 12.04.2017 value redetermined at Rs. 19,17,873/-, Rs. 44,16,744/-, Rs. 26,00,401/-, Rs. 22,98,117/-, Rs. 20,49,352 and Rs. 40,70,282/- (Total amounting to Rs. 1,73,52,769/-) for home consumption on payment of Redemption fine of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only), in addition to payment of applicable duty on the goods covered under the aforesaid Bills of entry at the redetermined values as s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Challans No 262 dated 21.04.2017, 253 dated 27.04.2017, 227 dated 21.04.2017, 245 dated 21.04.2017, 252 dated 27.04.2017, 228 dated 25.04.2017, 254 dated 27.04.2017, 248 dated 21.04.2017, 226 dated 25.04.2017, 272 dated 29.04.2017, 249 dated 21.04.2017, 257 dated 27.04.2017, 250 dated 21.04.2017, 255 dated 27.04.2017, 225 dated 25.04.2017, 251 dated 21.04.2017, 256 dated 27.04.2017 and 224 dated 25.04.2017, in respect of said 06 Bs/E of M/s Amit Enterprise b appropriated against the liability of Customs Duty, Interest or any other liability so may arise. 83. Shri Nilesh Ramesh Jadhav (the proprietor M/s Amit Enterprise) in respect of the bills of entry No 9278934, 9278938, 9278942, 9278944, 9278946 and 9278948 all dated 12.04.2017: i) I impose penalty of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) on Shri Nilesh Ramesh Jadhav under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for his wilful involvement in illegitimate import of subject goods under seizure. ii) I impose penalty of Rs. 1.8 Crore (Rupees One Crore Eighty Lakhs only) on Shri Nilesh Ramesh Jadhav under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 for his involvement in knowingly or intentionall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to tune of Rs. 3,03,471/-, Rs. 4,31,594/-, Rs. 4,45,033/-, and Rs. 6.25,484/- (Total amounting to Rs. 18,05,583/-) (excluding counterfeit items) be demanded and recovered under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with appropriate interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962. v) I impose penalty amounting to Rs. 23,05,362/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Five Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Two only) on the importer M/s J S Enterprise under Section 114A of the Customs Act,1962 for his omission and commission and short levy of Customs duty on account of suppression of facts in terms of quantity, description, classification, brand and value. vi) The amount paid vide manual Challans No 268 dated 28.04.2017, 261 dated 21.04.2017, 246 dated 21.04.2017, 251 dated 27.04.2017, 232 dated 25.04.2017, 247 dated 21.04.2017, 269 dated 28.04.2017, 230 dated 25.04.2017, 263 dated 21.04.2017, 270 dated 28.04.2017, 252 dated 21.04.2017 and 229 dated 25.04.2017, in respect of said 04 Bs/E of M/s J S Enterprise be appropriated against the liability of Customs Duty, Interest or any other liability so may arise. 85. Shri Jitu Sharad Shirsat (the proprietor M/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y) on the importer M/s Prakash Enterprise under Section 114A of the Customs Act,1962 for his omission and commission and short levy of Customs duty on account of suppression of facts in terms of quantity, description, classification, brand and value. vi) The amount paid vide manual Challans No 254 dated 21.04.2017, in respect of said Bs/E of M/s Prakash Enterprise be appropriated against the liability of Customs Duty, Interest or any other liability so may arise. 87. Shri Rahul Prakash Sable (the proprietor M/s Prakash Enterprise) in respect of the bills of entry No 9278932 dated 12.04.2017: I impose penalty of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) on Shri Rahul Prakash Sable under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for his wilful involvement in illegitimate import of subject goods under seizure. 88 In respect of the Importer namely M/s Prism Enterprise i) The goods imported vide Bill of entry No 9278936 all dated 12.04.2017 value re-determined at Rs. 6,78,977/- be confiscated under Section 111(d), 111(f), (l) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. ii) I allow Redemption of the goods imported vide Bs/E 9278936 all dated 12.04.2017 v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the illegal activity of some unscrupulous firms/ persons in order to earn money by unfair means, for his act of omission and commission and due to his major role in respect of misdeclaration of quantity, value, brand and description of the subject import goods. ii) I impose penalty of Rs. 2,00,00,000 (Rupees Two Crore only) on Shri Amit Kumar Singhania under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 for his major involvement in knowingly or intentionally making, using or causing to be made, signed or used declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect to customs authorities for clearance purposes. 91. Shri Dhiren Kukreja who is the claimant in respect of the Bs/E 9278944 all dated 12.04.2017 filed in the name of M/s Amit Enterprise : i) His claim of ownership in respect of the Bs/E 9278944 all dated 12.04.2017 filed in the name of M/s Amit Enterprise be rejected as he has failed to produce/ submit any agreement/ No Objection from M/s Amit Enterprise or its proprietor Shri Nilesh Jadhav. ii) I impose penalty of Rs. 65,000 /- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only) on Shri Dhiren Kukreja under Section 112 for his involvement in omission and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing, using and submitting false/ incorrect documents to customs authorities for clearance purposes. 94. M/s Chitalia Logistics Pvt Ltd., the Customs Broker in respect of the Bs/E 9278929, 9278931,9278932, 9278936, 9278937/ 12.04.2017 and 9278939, 9278934, 9278938, 9278942, 9278944, 9278946 and 9278948 all dated 12.04.2017: i) I impose penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 /- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on M/s Chitalia Logistics Pvt Ltd under Section 112 for their wilful involvement in illegitimate import of subject goods under seizure. ii) I impose penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on M/s Chitalia Logistics Pvt Ltd under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 for his involvement knowingly and intentionally in making, using and causing to be made and used false/ incorrect documents to customs authorities for clearance purposes as in the fake/ false invoices, packing list and other documents were being prepared in their office. 95. Shri Manish Barot, Manager and Power of Attorney holder in M/s Chitalia Logistics Pvt Ltd., in respect of the Bs/E 9278929, 9278931, 9278932, 9278936, 9278937, 9278939, 9278934, 9278938, 9278942, 9278944, 9278946 and 92789....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant Charge against Appellant Amit Rajkumar Singhania Actual owner of imported goods which have been confiscated. Jitu Sharad Shirsat Proprietor of J S Enterprise, imported goods against four bill of entry. The goods have been confiscated and penalties imposed on him. Anjana Nilesh Jadhav Proprietor of Amit Enterprise, imported goods against four bill of entry. The goods have been confiscated and penalties imposed on him. Manish Dhirajlal Barot Manager and Power of Attorney Holder of CHA. Responsible for filing the bills of entry. Penalty has been imposed. Chitalia Logistics P Ltd Custom House Agent who is responsible for filing the bill of entries. Penalty has been imposed. Harshwardhan Thakur Director of CHA. Penalty has been imposed on him. 2.1 Based on the specific information that certain unscrupulous persons using the bogus/ forged documents to smuggle substantial quantity and undeclared items of mobile accessories/ readymade garments/ fabrics from China, Hong Kong South Korea Istanbul and other countries to evade payment of duty, investigations were initiated and consignments imported against 12 Bill of Entries detailed in table below....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y appeal filed by M/s Prism Enterprise, M/s Prakash Enterprise, , Shri Rahul Prakash Sable, Shri Shivaji Sarjerao Salunkhe, Shri Dhiren Kukreja, Shri Ashraf Mohammed Husain Kolsawala and Shri Nasir Phundan Khan. 3.1 We have heard Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for the Appellants and Shri R K Dwivedi, Additional Commissioner for the Revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellants, learned advocated submitted that- • Since the inception of proceedings, Shri Nilesh Ramesh Jadhav Proprietor of M/s Amit Enterprises has expired and hence the proceedings against him should be abated. • The adjudication order has proceeded to confiscate the goods alleged to imported by mis-declaring the value etc and also simultaneously proceeded to demand the duty under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with the interest under Section 28AA. Accordingly the penalties have been imposed simultaneously under Section 112, 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. • As per the SCN para 2, goods were intercepted prior to payment of duty and all the bill of entries were pending registration and examination. • Once the goods were intercepted and seized prior to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re also found, apart from the goods which were grossly undervalued. • The counterfeit goods imported by the appellant have been absolutely confiscated. • In respect of the other goods the charges of undervaluation are based on the market enquiries undertaken and the as per table 30 to Show Cause Notice, this market enquiry report is listed at Annexure LXXVI • Since appellants have by their acts of omission and commission rendered the imported goods liable for confiscation either absolutely or allowed to be redeemed against redemption fine, they are liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. • Since the duty has been short paid by the appellant demand of duty under Section 28 is justified and imposition of penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 too cannot be faulted with. • Since the appellants have made use of forged/fake invoices etc for the purpose of clearance of the goods they are also liable for penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with submissions made in appeals and during the course of arguments. From the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tigations that the invoices and packing lists produced in respect of the 12 Bs/E in question were manipulated documents and the declared value, based on such manipulated documents is liable to be rejected. Further, a clear relationship has emerged between the main player in this scheme of duty evasion, Shri Amit Singhania that he held interests in the overseas suppliers as well as in the imported goods in 9 of the 12 Bills of Entry in question which renders the declared value of goods liable to rejection. The declared values in the remaining three Bills of Entry were similar and identical to Bills of Entry in which Shri Amit Singhania was involved as the real owner of imported goods and the same had been manipulated and prepared with the active connivance of the CB Shri Manish Barot of Chitalia Logistics Pvt Ltd and hence the declared value in these three Bills of Entry are also liable to be rejected." 4.4 Detailing the process for determination of value, Commissioner has in para 21 observed as follows: "21. Accordingly, valuation of the subject goods in the instant case (except mentioned at Point III of Para 20 above) was done as per the said Rule 7 of the CVR, 2007 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trongly denied." 4.6 Commissioner ahs in para 62 of his order denied the cross examination stating as follows: "62 The cross examination was denied on the grounds that the case is basically about gross mis-declaration of quantity, description and value; the inventory of seized goods prima facie indicate mis declaration in terms of quantity, description and value and the nature of some of the seized goods figuring in the inventory also prima facie indicated violation of IPR as well as other norms. To sum up it was clear that the case is built on the grounds of seizure of offending goods and so far the factotum of seizure neither appears to suffer from deficiency nor does the offending nature of goods appear mitigated in any manner. Further it is seen that the learning advocate at sort cross examination of departmental officers and shop keepers but the records of case make it clear that none of these persons statement (recorded under the statutory provision of Section 108 of Customs Act) are part of the case file or have been relied upon in the case. Merely by saying that market inquiry is vague, the learned advocate does not prepare the ground for assailing the market en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22.03.2018 No sign Board. Address and IEC Holder found "25.2 The statements of Shri Jitu Sharad Shirsat, Proprietor of J S Enterprise and Shri Nilesh Ramesh Jadhav, Proprietor of Amit Enterprise were recorded on 27.07.2017 and 15.09.2017 respectively. Inter alai both these IEC holders have admitted that they had no knowledge of the import consignments covered by the above said Bs/E filed in name of J S Enterprise and Amit Enterprise which were seized by the Customs. At the time of address verification, Shri Rahul Prakash Sable Proprietor of Prakash Enterprise Shri Shivaji Sarjerao Salunkhe, Proprietor of Prism Enterprise, refused to have any knowledge of any import consignments filed in their company/ fir's name which were seized by Customs ...." "25.4 Prima facie, the manner of the present imports appear to be part of a larger modus operandi of a syndicate of related overseas suppliers and local importers to misdeclared and undervalue mobile accessories and clear them on basis of manipulated documents such as invoices and packing lists that are printed in India and not sent by the overseas suppliers. This view further finds support by the fact that the remittanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 will come. In case- • he does not redeem the goods for clearance in DTA there cannot be question of payment of duty. • he redeems the goods but seeks the permission for export of redeemed goods and the permission to export is allowed by the competent person, then also there cannot be any question of payment of duty. Hence the demand of duty made by invoking the provisions of Section 28, prior to redemption of the goods is totally premature. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre [2001 (132) ELT 257 (SC)] laid the law stating as follows: "11. Whenever an order confiscating the imported goods is passed, an option, as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Customs Act, is to be given to the person to pay fine in lieu of the confiscation and on such an order being passed according to sub-section (2) of Section 125, the person "shall in addition be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods". A reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 125 together makes it clear that liability to pay duty arises under subsection (2) in addition to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 46,03,850 - 4 Custom Broker (CB) 5,00,000 10,00,000 5 Power of Attorney holder Custom Broker 7,50,000 25,00,000 4.11 The sections under which the penalties have been imposed are reproduced below: SECTION 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc.- Any person, - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, subject to the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reement of liability of confiscation of the goods imported under the IEC of Noticee No 1. From the records of case it is clear that Noticee No 1 was simply functioning as a dummy to allow import under its IEC; the premises of Noticee No 1 as mentioned in the IEC was found to nonexistent, no sign board or office or any company in the name of M/s Amit Enterprises was found to be functioning at the said address. Summons and other correspondence were issued to M/s Amit Enterprises but most of them were returned undelivered with remarks from the postal authority "Addressee doesn't residing in this address". Hence I hold that the goods covered under the six bills of Entry of M/s Amit Enterprises whose collective value has been re-determined as Rs. 1,73,52,769/- liable to confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act. I also hold that the goods contravening the provisions of IPR norm liable for absolute confiscation. It follows that the duty liability on the confiscated goods which if allowed to be redeemed shall be based on the re-determined value. As far as penalty under section 112 is concerned, I find that though Noticee No 1 (proprietorship firm) has rendered the goods liable to conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to M/s J S Enterprises but most of them were returned undelivered with remarks from the postal authority "Addressee doesn't residing in this address". Hence I hold that the goods covered under the four bills of Entry of M/s J S Enterprises whose collective value has been re-determined as Rs. 85,17,761/- liable to confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act. I also hold that the goods contravening the provisions of IPR norm liable for absolute confiscation. It follows that the duty liability on the confiscated goods which if allowed to be redeemed shall be based on the re-determined value. As far as penalty under section 112 is concerned, I find that though Noticee No 3 (proprietorship firm) has rendered the goods liable to confiscation and therefore rendered itself liable to penalty under section 112, considering the fact that the sole proprietor of Noticee No 3 is also a Noticee in this SCN, I would opt to refrain from imposing penalty on Noticee No 3 (proprietorship firm) under Section 112 but rather consider imposing it on the sole proprietor of Noticee No 3 i.e. Notice No 4 (Shri Jeetu Sharad Shirsat). Whereas the fact remains that when duty is being rightly demanded under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atements have been retracted, he did not specify as to which statement he was referring. I have perused the case records and I find that not only the retraction was after a considerable time lag, the Revenue 9Supdt of Customs CIU, ACC, Mumbai) had filed an effective rebuttal against the retraction. In view of the aforesaid I do not find any reason to give credence to the retraction as it is basically an afterthought to escape the punitive actions. I hold Noticee No 9 as the person whose acts of commission/ omission rendered the subject goods (covered by 9 BOEs) liable to confiscation and therefore he has rendered himself liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. It is also clear that the documents utilized for filing the Bs/E and declaring the goods were basically forged/ fabricated documents. I have no hesitation in recording that Noticee No 9 is one of the main person involved in creating such forged/ fabricated documents which act amounts to wilful mis statement, suppression of facts and collusion for the purpose of evading duties. Hence I hold Noticee No 9 liable to penalty under Section 114AA of Customs Act, for his major involvement in knowingly/ intentionally m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated that confessional statements have been retracted, he did not specify as to which statement he was referring. I have perused the case records and I find that not only the retraction was after a considerable time lag, the Revenue 9Supdt of Customs CIU, ACC, Mumbai) had filed an effective rebuttal against the retraction. In view of the aforesaid I do not find any reason to give credence to the retraction as it is basically an afterthought to escape the punitive actions. I hold Noticee No 14 as the person whose acts of commission/ omission rendered the subject goods (covered by 12 BOEs) liable to confiscation and therefore he has rendered himself liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. It is also clear that the documents utilized for filing the Bs/E and declaring the goods were basically forged/ fabricated documents. I have no hesitation in recording that Noticee No 14 is the main person who played the most important role in this smuggling racket and who involved in creating such forged/ fabricated documents which act amounts to wilfull mis statement, suppression of facts and collusion for the purpose of evading duties. Hence I hold Noticee No 14 liable to penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ials were used for obtaining IECs have actively colluded or suppressed facts o made wilful mis-statements, hence I do not find these persons viz the proprietors of the firms in whose name IECs were obtained, to be liable to penalty under Section 114A/ 114AA of Customs Act. But at the same time I am fully conscious of the fact that there was collusion, wilful misstatement as well as wilful suppression of facts in carrying out the smuggling activity by utilizing the proxy IEC; the blame in my opinion rests with the firms whose IECs were utilized in addition to other persons who played the major role in this case. Hence, I am of the opinion that penalty under Section114A/ 114AA is liable to be imposed on the firms whose IECs were utilized as well as on the persons who played major role amounting to collusion, wilful misstatement as well as wilful suppression of facts." We cannot agree with the above reasoning of the Commissioner for imposing penalties under section 114A/ 114AA of the Customs Act, without even considering the material facts on records to show as to how these persons have filed or caused to file the fraudulent/ fake documents for clearance of goods. We also are not i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore its dissolution. A distinction was drawn between an individual who dies and a firm that is dissolved as a device to evade tax. The Court laid great stress on the provision contained in Section 15(1) of the said Act by which the jurisdiction to assess or reassess under Section 15(1) is equated with the original jurisdiction to assess the dealer under Section 14. By this method, the Court found the continuity of the legal personality of the assessee is maintained in order to enable the assessment of turnover which has escaped assessment. The crucial difference, therefore, between Section 15(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act is that Section 11A does not contain any such provision as is contained in Section 15(1) which equates the jurisdiction to assess or reassess with the original jurisdiction to assess the dealer in the very first place. Further, this Court also construed Section 19 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 which would throw light on the earlier Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, as containing the necessary machinery provisions to assess dissolved firms in respect of escaped turnover pre-dissolution. Hence, this Court adde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n be found in Sections 35, 35A and 62 of the Act." 25. A reading of the ratio of the majority decision contained in Murarilal's case (supra) would lead to the conclusion that the necessary machinery provisions were already contained in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 which were good enough to bring into the tax net persons who wished to evade taxes by the expedient of dissolving a partnership firm. The fact situation in the present case is entirely different. In the present case an individual proprietor has died through natural causes and it is nobody's case that he has maneuvered his own death in order to evade excise duty. Interestingly, in the written submissions filed by revenue, revenue has argued as follows :- "It is pertinent to mention that in the present case, Shri George Varghese (predecessor in interest of the appellants herein) was doing business in the name of manufacturing unit namely M/s. Kerala Tyre & Rubber Company and after the death of Shri George Varghese, his legal representatives (appellants herein) might have been in possession of the plant, machinery, stock, etc., and continuing the same business, but might be in some other name in order to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... C.A. Abraham v. The Income-Tax Officer, Kottayam & Another, AIR 1961 SC 609 at 612 para 6 : (1961) 2 SCR 765 at page 771, The State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami & Others, AIR 1975 SC 1871 (para 26) : (1975) 4 SCC 745 (para 26), Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi & Others v. Shri Krishna Engineering Co. & Others, (2005) 2 SCC 695, page 702, 703 paras 19 to 23, all enunciate principles dealing with tax evasion in the context of construing provisions which are designed to prevent tax evasion. The question at hand is very different - it only deals with whether the Central Excises and Salt Act contains the necessary provisions to continue assessment proceedings against a dead man in respect of excise duty payable by him after his death, which is a question which has no relation to the construction of provisions designed to prevent tax evasion. 29. Learned counsel for the revenue also cited Girja Nandini Devi & Ors. v. Bijendra Narain Choudhury, (1967) 1 S.C.R. 93 at paragraph 15, and Shri Rameshwar Manjhi (deceased) through his son Shri Lakhiram Manjhi v. Management of Sangramgarh Colliery & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 292 at paragraph 12, in support of the general principle that an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible in any statute, what is called an equitable, construction, certainly, such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute where you can simply adhere to the words of the statute". 32. In Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC, (1921) 1 KB 64 at 71, Rowlatt J. laid down : "In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used."" In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court the proceedings initiated against the deceased appellant should abate. However only those proceedings which are in personam can abate under the Customs Act, 1962. Proceedings qua the cle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion could be imposed only for contravention of the provisions of the Custom Act, either directly or indirectly by abetting in such contravention or for failure to comply with the provisions of the of the act ibid. Commissioner has while discussing the role of Appellant 6 (Noticee No 15), not identified the provision of Custom Act, 1962, which has been contravened by him directly or indirectly by him we are not in position to uphold the penalty imposed by the Commissioner under the said section. Supervisory failure by the employer over his employee cannot be the ground for imposition of penalty under this section, even if the employee has been found abetting or involved in the ac of smuggling of goods by misdeclaration, suppression or fraud. Penalty which is punitive in personam cannot be imposed for the offences committed by someone else (employee) for the reason of employment contract. Hence the penalties imposed by the Commissioner on Appellant No 6, under Section 117 are set aside. 5.1 In view of discussions as above dispose of the appeals filed by the six appellants before us as follows: i. The goods imported against the Bill of Entries filed in the name of proprie....