Dismissed

M/S Big Apple Computers, v. The Commissioner of Customs

Telangana HC19 Nov 2012CEA/17/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The apex court dismissed the appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that the Tribunal's concurrent findings of fact involved no perversity and no substantial question of law arose, especially since the appellant filed a single appeal against common orders that ought to have been separately appealed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; no costs.

M/S Big Apple Computers, Vs The Commissioner of Customs — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶3

C.E.A.No.17 of 2012

¶4

Date: 19.11.2012

¶5

Between: M/s.Big Apple Computers Secunderabad

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

AND

¶8

The Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad – II Commissionerate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and another.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶11

C.E.A.No.17 of 2012

¶12

JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram):

¶13

This appeal by the assessee under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is preferred against the appellate order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (Tribunal), dated 20.06.2005 rejecting the assessee’s appeal insofar as imposition of fine and penalty for importing of second hand computer monitors without licence and consequent on determination of the enhanced value of import of the colour monitors by the primary authority is concerned. The Tribunal relied on its Final Order No.231/2005, dated 14.02.2005 pertaining to the same assessee. The order of the Tribunal dated 14.02.2005 had relied on several precedents to confirm the imposition of fine and penalty while reducing the quantum of fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the value respectively. This conclusion of the Tribunal concurring substantially with the orders of the Appellate Authority was passed in Appeal No.C/241/2002.

¶14

Appeal No.C/236/2004 is another appeal preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal against the valuation made by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Appeals. The Tribunal rejected this appeal of the assessee as well on the ground that the assessee neither preferred a separate appeal against the order of Assessment nor had filed a cross appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals against the appeal filed

¶15

by the Revenue.

¶16

In view of the concurrent findings of fact involving no perversity in appreciation of the applicable law, we find no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, it requires to be noticed that as against the common order of the Tribunal dated 20.06.2005 in two appeals i.e., Appeal Nos.C/241/2002 and C/236/2004, the assessee has preferred this single appeal when it ought to have preferred separate appeals.

¶17

For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶18

JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶19

Date: 19.11.2012

¶20

JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶23

C.E.A.No.17 of 2012

¶24

(order of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶25

Date: 19.11.2012

¶26

M/S Big Apple Computers, v. The Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Big Apple Computers, v. The Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii, Vs M/s. Avon Organics Limited

The Coomissioner of Income Tax-v Vs M/s.Mahanagar Estates

Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Agricultural Market Committee

Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati. Vs Agricultural Market Committee, Proddatur

Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad Vs M/s. Gvl Balaji Chits.

Pochareddy Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs The Assistant commercial Tax Officer