Revenue appeal against Tribunal order dismissing penalty against company director. Court holds no substantial question of law as company penalty disposal remains pending.
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
24-2-CUAPP-44-18.doc
Sharayu Khot .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2018
The Commissioner of Customs …Appellant (Preventive)
Versus
Shri Ashok Jatia …Respondent
Mr. Sham Walve a/w Mr. Ram Ochani, for the Appellant.
Mr. Harmaz Daruwalla a/w Mr. Rahul Jain i/by Alpha Chambers, for the Respondent.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 8 October 2018
SharayuPandurangKhot Digitally signedby SharayuPandurang KhotDate: 2018.10.1111:47:48 +1200
ORDER :
passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
1 / 3
October 8, 2018
24-2-CUAPP-44-18.doc
Tribunal (for short “ the Tribunal ”). The impugned order dated 25th July 2017 is a common order of the Tribunal relating to M/s. Vaj Marketing Investments Private Limited and its Director the Respondent herein.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal right in deleting penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Act?
Revenue's Appeal filed from the common impugned order dated
2 / 3 October 8, 2018
24-2-CUAPP-44-18.doc
25th July 2017 of the Tribunal in respect of M/s. Vaj Marketing Investments Private Limited being Custom Appeal No. 41 of 2018. This Appeal relates to the Director of M/s. Vaj Marketing Investments Private Limited and in view of the above, the order impugned herein in respect of the Respondent would also not give rise to any substantial question of law. This for the reasons that the penalty upon the Respondent herein can only be upheld, if it had been held that M/s. Vaj Marketing Investments Private Limited of which the Respondent is a Director was an importer under the Act.
present facts does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
as to costs.
[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.]
[M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]
3 / 3
October 8, 2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Customs
Shri Ashok Jatia
M.S. Sanklecha
Riyaz I. Chagla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
