TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (10) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D/31 and 32/03, dated 30th June, 2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tuglakhabad, New Delhi. 2. By the impugned order the Tribunal has dismissed the first appeal filed by amongst others, the appellant against the Order-in-Original dated 30th June, 2003. 3. The facts in brief are that one M/s. Suren International Limited was found to be illegally importing tin, nickel and zinc by concealing these metals in consignments declared as of aluminium scrap. Excess quantities of aluminium scrap and import of copper scrap in place of aluminium scrap was also there. In respect of 17 container loads, M/s Suren International Limited had filed Bills of Entry. Part of the goods i.e. 23 container load consigned to Suren International Lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited and the appellant herein and other business entities were also seized from the farm house of one Mr. Hans Nagar at Vasant Kunj. 5. In response to the notices issued by the authorities the appellant herein claimed that the goods seized from the two trucks belonged to it and that it had purchased these goods from two Delhi parties, who in turn claimed to have procured these goods from Bombay parties. The value, of the goods seized from the trucks was about 5.5 crores. 6. It was claimed by the appellant that they had procured the said goods from M/s Ashok Kumar and Co. Ltd, D-267, Gali No.10, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and M/s Amrit Industries, 3992, Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi. The authorities made detailed enquiries which revealed that M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocured goods as claimed by the appellant. The Commissioner of Customs, therefore, proceeded to confiscate the goods and the trucks and allowed redemption thereof on payment of fine of Rs. 2.5 crores for the metal and Rs. 5 lakhs for each of the two trucks. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act upon the appellant. 8. The Appellant preferred a statutory Appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the order dated 9-13th May, 2006 impugned herein. The Tribunal, discussed the claim of the Appellant in Paras 8 and 9 as follows : In respect of the goods seized from the two trucks and Ganga Nursery godown the claim all through was that they belonged to M/s. Gaurav Exim Pvt. Ltd., and that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses controlled by Sh. Harish Kumar. The detailed finding of the Commissioner on this issue is to be found in paras 173 (ii) to 183 of the impugned order. The contention before us is that the surrendering/revocation of sales tax registration by M/s. Gaurav Exim's suppliers is no ground to reject their sales to M/s. Gaurav Exim, in as much as, even transactions in violation of Sales Tax Laws remain valid. We find no merit in this submission. The evidence on record clearly brings out that these goods were not procured in India as claimed by M/s. Gaurav Exim. The recovery and seizure of the goods was pursuant to information about storage of these goods by M/s. Suren International Limited, the drivers of the trucks and the persons at Ganga Nu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable on record, as found by both the Commissioner of Customs and the Tribunal which clearly shows that the so-called purchase was not genuine, that the two Delhi parties were defunct and that the monies allegedly paid to the Bombay parties had come back through a hawala channel. The nexus of the Appellant with M/s. Suren International is also clearly established. 11. Coming now to the questions raised in the appeal we think it proper to set out the same herein below : "(A) Whether, in respect of goods procured from the local market (there is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice as to when the goods were imported, or by whom), the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, would be applicable. ....