TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent to follow procedure stipulated under Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 53 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and non-exercise of powers conferred under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to refuse registration, would constitute offence of abetment making the respondent liable for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal about absence of proof involving the respondent in the act of abetment is in disregard of the admissible evidences on record? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is as the consequence of the non-con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer has recorded the statements of various persons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Notices were thereafter issued, replies were also given and under these facts and circumstances the Commissioner of Customs, Gujarat, Ahmedabad in the capacity of the adjudicating authority, passed order in Original No.50/COMMR/97, dated 31.12.1997 directing inter alia, imposition of penalty of Rs.7 lacs, Rs.9 lacs and Rs.12 lacs respectively on the respondents of these three Tax Appeals under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1965. 3. Being dissatisfied with the imposition of order of penalty by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, the respondents preferred Appeals before the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 and has pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustom as well as Tribunal. So far as present respondents are concerned, Commissioner of Custom has observed that one Anilkumar H. Patel submitted that registration application contained the correct year of make and as such the department cannot say that the application contained false year of make. He also stated that the department has not brought any evidence to prove on record that the handwriting on the pages of right hand side of the duplicate R.C. Book are of his or any person under his control. As regards payment of Rs.65,000/- to him he has stated that the statement is not clear as to whether Rs.65,000/- were paid to him for preparing the R.C. Book or after the R.C. Books were prepared. So far as respondent, Shri D. T. Mehta is conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but Mr. Mehta instructed him to use work 'not known', since the applicants have not brought old registration record. Mr. Darji admitted that xerox copies of duplicate R.C. Books were shown to him and stated that writing on the left side of the book was his hand writing and on right side was not his hand writing. 6. On the basis of statements of co-noticees and these three respondents and the finding was arrived at by the Commissioner of Custom that these persons have failed to discharge their duties properly and they registered the old vehicles without calling for old documents, without taking the road test and by not making all the entries in the records of registration books. On the basis of these facts, the learned Commissioner of Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to ascertain the year of the manufacture. However, the Commissioner's order does not indicate how this would have facilitated the smuggling of the cars. The Tribunal, therefore, observed that the duplicate registration certificate which was presented to the Custom at the time of export showed the year of manufacture to be 1960, 1961 and 1962. However, there is nothing to connect the applicant with these years being shown. The Tribunal further observed with regard to Mr. D. T. Mehta that whether his functioning as a motor vehicle inspector was contrary to the guidelines of his department would not be relevant for the purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Act unless it can be shown that his acts or omissions were significa....