Allowed

The Commissioner of Customs v. Akram M D

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2013CSTA/19/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of an appeal by the Commissioner of Customs against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Relying on its own judgment in CSTA No.33 of 2006, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and restored the orders of the lower authorities.

What did the court decide?

The judgment allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal, and restored the order passed by the original authority as confirmed by the first appellate authority.

The Commissioner of Customs Vs Akram M D — Customs and Excise | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR

¶7

CSTA No.19 of 2005

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS HQRS. OFFICE, C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE … APPELLANT

¶10

[By Sri N R Bhaskar, CGSC]

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI AKRAM, M.D. NO.7/2, SHIVAJI ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

[By Sri Lakshminarayan, Adv. for Sri Kiran S Javali, Adv.]

¶15

THIS CSTA FILED UNDER SECTION 130A OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF LAW AND SETASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL C.NO.76/2003 (FINAL ORDER NO. 315/2005) DATED 04-03-2005, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED ABOVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶16

THIS CSTA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Customs under section 130[1] of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 4.3.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in Appeal. C. No.76/2003.

¶20

Appellant has raised the following questions for examination in this appeal.

¶21

“1. Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that there is no burden on the person in possession of goods with foreign markings without any valid documents since they are not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962?

¶22

Whether the Tribunal has committed error in setting aside the order of the adjudicating authority dated 22.03.2002 as also the order of the appellate authority dated 15.09.2003?

¶23

Whether Tribunal has committed error in ordering that respondent is entitled to receive the value of the goods by applying the ratio of Northern Plastics Ltd., vs. CCE – 1999 (113) ELT 3 (SC)3?

¶24

¶25

Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the goods in question cannot be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 more particularly under Section 111E?

¶26

Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the actual import of the meaning envisaged under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962?

¶27

Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the effect of presumption of culpable mental state as per Section 138A of the Customs Act?”

¶28

Notice had been issued to the respondents represented by M/s. Kiran S Javali & Lakshminarayan, Advocates.

¶29

Sri. Bhaskar, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for the respondents both submit that questions as raised in this appeal are now covered by the Judgment dated. 29.09.2011 rendered by this court in CSTA No.33 of 2006, in as much as, after passing the impugned order which is subject matter

¶30

¶31

of the present appeal, the Tribunal has relying upon this order had allowed many such appeals and the order passed by the Tribunal in such a subsequent appeal, was the subject matter of the appeal before this court by the revenue in CSTA No.33 of 2006 i.e., order rendered in Nos. 123 and 124 of 2006 dated 30.01.2006. That appeal of the revenue in CSTA No.33/2006 having been allowed and order of the Tribunal having been set aside, reasoning given by the Tribunal for passing the present order questioned in this appeal does not sustain and in this view of the matter the present appeal is also to be allowed and the order of the Tribunal set aside and the order passed by the original authority and first appellate authority is to be restored.

¶32

In view of the above position, we allow this appeal and answer question No.3 in favour of the revenue and set aside the order of the Tribunal impugned in this appeal restoring the order passed by the original authority as confirmed by the first appellate authority.

¶33

¶34

It is also open to the appellant – revenue to recover the amount, if any refund had already taken place in respect of the amount due by the assessee, but on the basis of the

¶35

order passed by the Tribunal.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

AN/-

The Commissioner of Customs v. Akram M D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Customs v. Akram M D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. H D Bhyramma Vs the Managing Director

H Vasudevamurthy Vs Dr Muddu Mohan K a S

Narmada Yengkokpam Vs Dr D Prem Kumar

S P Eshwarappa Vs Sri Mehaboob

Sri Lakshminarasappa Vs Sri M S N Babu

Gangadharswamy B J Vs Sri Kumara Nayaka