Pradeep Jain - Chartered Accountant

PJ/Case Laws/2009-10/19

Case Laws

Central Excise Section:

Case: - Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Visakhapatnam v/s M/s Hygrade Pallet Ltd

Citation: - 2009-TIOL-1885-CESTAT-BANG

Issue: - Whether Rule 6 is applicable when the waste is not generated out of manufacturing process?

Brief Facts: - The respondent-assessee were receiving iron ore fines and subjecting them to the process of sieving and grinding. For this process they were using grinding media which are of steel walls. On this, they were taking cenvat credit. During the process of sieving/grinding, some fines whose sizes are above 10mm are separated and sold to various purchasers. Department contended that the input is used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. The fines which were found suitable are actually inputs for making pellets. Accordingly, department demanded 8% amount on the sale value of iron ore chips under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the amount with interest and imposed equal penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) gave finding that the demand for 8% amount for the material period on the value of clearances of iron ore chips emerging from the ball mill employing cenvat availed grinding media, is not sustainable. Reliance was placed by the Commissioner (A) on the judgments given in The Gas Authority of India Ltd v/s CCE, Mumbai & Vadodara [2001 (136) ELT 1019 (Tribunal-Mumbai)] and CCE, Bolpur v/s Durgapur Cement Works [1997 (90) ELT 197 (Tribunal)]. Revenue has filed appeal in the Tribunal against this order.

Appellant’s Contentions: - Revenue contended that the ratio of the judgment in The Gas Authority of India Ltd v/s CCE, Mumbai & Vadodara case was applicable to respondent’s case as it discusses about the applicability of the provisions of the erstwhile Rule 57D. But the respondent’s case relates to the applicability of the provisions of the erstwhile Rule 57D. In the absence of analogous provisions of Rule 57D in the new Cenvat Credit Rule, 2001 and 2002 and also since the present case is regarding applicability of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, but not the eligibility of the Cenvat Credit (Erstwhile Rule 57D), applying the ratio of GAIL case was not proper and legal. It was submitted that the ratio in GAIL case had not reached finality as an appeal against this order was admitted by the Apex Court [2002 (146) ELTA-86].

It was further contended that the non-dutiable product i.e. Iron ore chips emerging in the respondent’s case had a distinguished name and identity and is a marketable product, unlike lean gas emerging in the case relied upon by the Commissioner (A).

It was argued further that the case of Durgapur Cement Works in essence was that ‘grinding balls’ are eligible for cenvat credit strengthens the case of the Department in as much as the assessee has been using common inputs for exempted as well as dutiable final products.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the iron ore fines were subjected to the process of grinding and sieving. There is force in the Respondent’s contention that no process of manufacture was involved in getting the iron ore chips. During the process of sieving, particles of dimension larger than 10mm were discarded. In so far as manufacture of pellet is concerned, these particles have to be considered as waste. Therefore, they cannot be treated as final products manufactured out of cenvat inputs. Therefore, Rule 6 is not applicable. The order of the Commissioner (A) was legal and proper.

Decision: - Appeal dismissed.

*****

Case: - T.C. Spinners Pvt Limited v/s Union of India

Citation: - 2009 (243) ELT 31 (P & H)

Issue: - Whether a person is liable to pay the outstanding excise duty on secured asset under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 if the ‘first charge’ was not pleaded by the Excise Authorities?

Brief Facts: - The secured assets of ECL (defaulter) were sold under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner in agreement with another person M/s AV Cotex Ltd made the required payment of 25% of the total purchase value. In further agreement with the appointed bank, the custody of the secured assets of ECL were handed over. Thereafter, the revenue department vide letters dated 31.10.07 and 04.01.08 asked the petitioner to pay the outstanding excise duty in terms of the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner has challenged this action of the department by filing writ petition before the High Court.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the matter was not res integra. Reference was made to judgments given in the cases of M/s Isha Marbles v/s Bihar State Electricity Board & another [JT 1995 (2) SC 626], State of Karnataka and another v/s Shreyas Papers Pvt Ltd & others [JT 2006 (1) SC 180], UTI Bank Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise [2007 (208) ELT 3 (Mad)] and in Union of India v/s Punjab Financial Corporation [2007 (1) ISJ (Banking) 258].

The Tribunal held that the ‘first charge’ was not pleaded by the Excise Authorities. It was further held that the Excise Department cannot enforce the payment of their dues against the property purchased by the petitioner though they would have the liberty to seek redress against the original debtors. Impugned Letters are quashed.

Decision: - Writ petition allowed.

*****

Case: - Andhra Cements Ltd v/s Commissioner of C. Ex., Cus & ST, Guntur

Citation: - 2009 (243) ELT 41 (Tri-Bang.)

Issue: - Whether a sick unit is liable to discharge the duty through PLA if already adjusted the same amount through available Cenvat Credit Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004?

Brief Facts: - Appellant defaulted in discharging the duty payment to revenue under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004. Consequent to this default, the appellants were directed to make the payments of the duty liability of the clearances made by them through PLA, but the appellants made the payments through Cenvat credit eligible to them. SCN were issued and the Adjudicating Authority rejected the utilisation of Cenvat credit towards payment of duties on the clearances of final product and demanded that the duty be paid from PLA alongwith interest and penalty was also imposed. Appellant has filed appeals before the Tribunal against the said order.

Appellant’s Contentions: - Appellant contended that the they were declared as a sick unit by the BIFR and a scheme for revival of the appellant-company was approved vide order dated 25.07.08. Under the said scheme/declaration, the statutory liabilities would have to be discharged by the appellants within a period of 7 years and all penal interest, interest, damages, penalties charges or chargeable shall be waived. It was also submitted that the confirmed amount of duty was already discharged by the appellants through RG 23 A Part-II/Cenvat credit from their books of accounts. It was under that the interest and penalty imposed be set aside.

Respondent’s Contentions: - Department contended that in one case, the appellants had deposited the cheque and the said cheque was dishonoured. Despite that, the respondent took credit in the PLA and showed the debits. This was nothing but fraud on the Government. It was also submitted that the duty was already debited through RG 23A Part-II, even though thay were not supposed to do so.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal referred to the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 which provided for suspension of any dues from the party and enforcement of all or any rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accruing or arising thereunder with adaptations and in such manner as may be specified by the Board. The plain reading of the said provisions also indicated that once a board has made a declaration and prepared a scheme in respect of sick industrial companies, then that scheme will have the overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force, in respect of any dues from the said sick unit.

The Tribunal also perused the order passed by the BIFR dated 25.07.08 in appellant’s case wherein it was clearly stated that appellant’s liabilities towards penal interest and penalty are waived by the Board.

Accordingly, it was held that the appellant is not liable to pay any interest or penalty and since the appellant has already been declared as a sick unit, the amount debited by them in the Cenvat credit towards the duty liability should be considered as discharge of all duty liability by the appellant and that portion of the impugned orders directing the appellant to pay duty in PLA and subsequently take credit in Cenvat register is liable to be set aside. Impugned order set aside.

Decision: - Appeals allowed.

*****

Case: - Arora Products v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur

Citation: - 2009 (243) ELT 66 (Tri-Del)

Issue: - Is second order to be said unwarranted and uncalled for when there was no appeal surviving on the same day by virtue of another order?

Brief Facts: - The appeal was already disposed by an order dated 23.07.02 and was reported in 2003 (152) ELT 69. The same appeal was listed again and second order dated 07.10.08 was passed disposing the matter. Appellants have moved an application submitting that the second order passed was unwarranted and uncalled for as the matter was already disposed vide order dated 23.07.02.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the second order dated 07.10.08 was unwarranted and uncalled for when there was no appeal surviving on the day by virtue of order dated 23.07.08. The Tribunal further held that the registry is required to monitor the system so that such mistake does not recurs in future and should cause an enquiry how such lapse occurred. Direction given to place the enquiry report along with this appeal before the Hon’ble President for appropriate administrative direction, if any.

Decision: - Miscellaneous application disposed of.

*****

Case: - Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

Citation: - 2009–TIOL–1832 CESTAT – MUM

Issue: - Whether the appellant has claimed depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the value of the goods i.e., dies and moulds as capital goods, which represents the amount of duty or not?

Brief Facts: - The appellant were given show cause notice denying cenvat credit on the ground that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit as well as depreciation under Income Tax on the value of dies and moulds including the value of excise duty and thereby have allegedly contravened the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit and ordered recovery of interest and imposed equivalent amount of penalty. The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before the Tribunal.

Appellant’s Contentions: - Appellant contended that they had not availed the depreciation on the impugned goods but had claimed the impugned goods as revenue expenditure, which was allowed by an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the same has been reflected in the extract of the balance sheet and the reports.

Appellant also submitted that the denial of Cenvat credit is only on the basis of the orders of the CIT (Appeals) granting depreciation on the value of capital goods given on lease, which are covered in the order of the CIT (A). It is submitted that the value of the impugned goods is covered in the value of revenue expenditure allowed by CIT (A) in the said order. Hence, there is no question of claiming depreciation under IT on the value of the impugned goods including the duty amount paid thereon in contravention of the Cenvat credit Rules and therefore, the credit availed by them was correct, legal and proper.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal found that the CIT (Appeals) in its order has allowed the depreciation on capital assets which do not include the impugned goods. The impugned goods has been allowed by the CIT (Appeals) as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal agrees with the submissions made by appellants that the impugned goods i.e. dies and moulds have been claimed by the appellant as revenue expenditure and not as the capital goods. When there is no capital goods, the question of depreciation did not arise. Impugned order set aside.

Decision: - Appeal allowed with consequential relief (if any).

*****

Service Tax Section:

Case: - CCE, Indore v/s Vikram Cement

Citation: - 2009 (94) RLT 748 (CESTAT-Del)

Issue: - Is credit on the input services which are required for manufacturing of final goods allowed in case when services received outside the factory?

Brief Facts: - Respondents engaged in the manufacture of cement. They utilised input services in relation to installation of Fly Ash handling, Storage & Loading System at Kota Thermal Plant, in relation to fee for submission of DHDB report and fee due on submission of deposit block model report in relation to mines situated outside the factory, in relation to refund of MP/MAD/Cess and to bonus payable to provider against storage of coal rakes, for supervision and regulating the tankers of fly ash in FSP area.

The Original Authority denied cenvat credit on said input services received by appellant during the period from January 2005 to December, 2005. The Commissioner (A) set aside the original order. Revenue has therefore filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

Appellant’s Contentions: - Revenue contended that the input services were used outside the factory premises and therefore, the respondents are not eligible for credit. Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides any services used by the manufacturer whether direct or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal. It is also submitted that input services were rendered outside the place of removal of goods and therefore not eligible.

In reply to respondent’s submissions, it was submitted that Rule 2 (l) is very clear that the services used by the manufacturer must be in relation to the manufacture of final products. The services rendered at the premises of the power plant prior to the receiving of the inputs would not be treated as “procurement of input”. The words in the inclusion clause, “transportation upto place of removal” indicate that activities should be within the factory premises. It is to be looked as to whether the service is used in the manufacture of final products.

Respondent’s Contentions: - Respondent reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (A). Reliance was placed on the judgments given in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise v/s GTC Industries Ltd [2008 (89) RLT 197 (CESTAT-LB)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik v/s Cable Corporation of India Ltd [2008 (87) RLT 783 (CESTAT-Mum)] and Manikgarh Cement v/s CCE, Nagpur [2008 (85) RLT 480 (CESTAT-Mum)]. It was contended that the Commissioner (A) rightly held that there is no provisions for denial of credit on the ground that the service was rendered outside the factory premises.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the contentions of the Revenue are not acceptable. It is to be kept in mind that excise duty is a tax on value addition on goods, service tax is a tax on value addition by rendering services. Service tax has to be understood in this context. As per definition of input services in Rule 2 (l), input service would cover any services used by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The Commissioner (A) rightly held that there are no provisions that the services received outside the factory would not make eligibility for credit. The main issue to be examined is whether the service is provided in or in relation to the manufacture of final product.

On facts, it was held that coal and fly ash were required for manufacture of final products of appellants. The credit availed on the services which are related to manufacture of final goods. The value of such services was already included in the assessable value. The Commissioner (A) rightly allowed the credit on these items.

Decision: - Appeal rejected.

*****

Case: - Aparna Paper Processing Indus (P) Ltd v/s CCE (ST), Pondicherry

Citation: - 2009 (15) STR 53 (Tri-Chennai)

Issue: - Is services rendered to group companies classifiable under Management Consultancy Services?

Brief Facts: - The appellant accounted receipt of ‘management fee’ from another concern belonging to the same group in the year 2001-2002 to 2002-2003 the Original Authority held that the appellant had rendered taxable services classifiable under Management Consultant during the said period without following statutory formalities including payment of service tax due. Accordingly service tax with interest and penalty was imposed. The Commissioner (Appeal) sustained the demand of service tax interest and penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act. The penalty imposed under Section 76 was vacated on the finding that appellant were in confusion as to there liability to pay impugned tax and therefore they deserve relief under Section 80. Penalty under Section 78 was sustained on the grounds that the same was not challenged by the appellants. Revenue has filed appeal seeking to vacate the observation of the commissioner (Appeal) that “They also paid 25% of penalty imposed under section 78 as per the impugned order in original and revenue has not contested the same, therefore, the same is not the subject matter of these case”.

Appellant’s Contentions: - It was contented that the said amount did not represent consideration for management consultancy rendered to the group concerned. The impugned orders did not substantiate the finding that the appellants had rendered taxable service classifiable under the category of management consultant or that the amount accounted as management fee in the accounts of the appellants representative taxable value realised for management consultancy by the appellants. It was wrongly held that appellants had not charged the penalty imposed under section 78. It is submitted that the activity involved could be classified under Business Auxiliary Service which was may taxable from 01.07.2003, subsequent to the material period.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the finding of the Authorities below that appellant had rendered ‘management consultancy’ during the material period and had incurred liability to pay service tax under that category is not substantiated. There is no finding as to the nature of the service rendered and if the same is taxable under ‘management consultancy’. The submission of the appellant that the said service was classifiable under BAS was not convincingly contested. The Tribunal found that the Lower Authorities had held that assessee had rendered taxable service, without any reliable evidence to substantiate the same. There is no finding as to the activity involved and if it is classifiable under ‘management consultant’. Therefore the demand of tax, interest and the penalties imposed on appellant are not sustainable. Impugned order set aside.

Decision: - Appellants appeal allowed. Revenues Appeal dismissed.

*****

Case: - Telenet Systems Pvt Ltd v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur

Citation: - [2009] 23 STT 205 (MUM-CESTAT)

Issue: - The credit on telephone bills in name of employee is allowed if these are paid by company. The onus is on assessee to prove that the input services are used in manufacture of final product. The penalty can be imposed under Rule 15(2) if there is fraud, willful suppression.

Brief Facts: - The appellant had taken cenvat credit on telephone services and other services utilised by them. The Department denied cenvat credit on telephone service on the ground that the telephone bills were not in the name of the assessee. For other services, it was alleged that the Cenvat credit was not admissible as at the time of availment of such services, these services were not Cenvatable. The credit was allowed for some services by holding that the said services related to manufacture of final goods and for other services, credit was denied. The appellate authority held that the appellant had failed to establish that the services in question were used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. For mobile phone services, the appellate authority relied on No. 97/8/2007-ST, dated 23.08.07 and denied credit to the assessee for want of evidence.

Appellant’s Contentions: - For mobile phone service, Appellants relied upon the judgment in CCE (LTU) v/s Brakes India Ltd [2009 (13) STR 684] and CCE v/s Excel Crop Care Ltd {[2009] 20 STT 164 (Guj)}. For other services, the appellant argued that these services, being covered by the inclusive part of the definition of ‘input service’, are Cenvatable, inasmuch as the inclusive part of the definition is independent of its main part.

With regard to penalty, the appellant contended that the penalty was imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act without any finding in support thereof.

Respondent’s Contentions: - Revenue contended that the appellant has not discharged their burden of proof in respect of the services including the mobile phone services. In this connection, he has relied on Vikram Ispat v/s Commissioner of Central Excise {[2009] 22 STT 170 (Mum-CESTAT)}.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the mobile phones were procured by the company and supplied to some of their functionaries/employees and that mobile phone bills were paid by the company. In this circumstance, there is a presumption that the mobile phones were meant to be used in connection with the business of the company. This presumption, of course, is rebuttable. As this presumption is in favour of the appellant, the rebuttal has to come from the revenue. In instant case, there is nothing in the impugned order to show that this presumption was successfully rebutted. Therefore, CENVAT credit on mobile phone service must be admissible to the assessee.

The Tribunal further held that the said presumption was not available to other services and, therefore, the burden of proof is on the appellant. The appellant has not adduced evidence to establish that those services were, in fact, used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. It was held that the ‘input service’ covered by the second part of the definition should satisfy the essential conditions laid down in the first part of the definition for the purpose of availment of credit. In other words, it is necessary for the assessee to show that the services were used in or in relation to the manufacture or clearance of the final products, either directly or indirectly. This burden was not discharged in the present case as rightly held by the lower appellate authority. Thus, the appeal fails except in respect of mobile phone service.

For penalty, the Tribunal held that according to Rule 15 (2), irregular availment of CENVAT credit by way of fraud, collusion, suppression/mis-statement of facts or contravention of rules with intention to evade payment of duty would attract a penalty. But in instant case, none of these ingredients was alleged in any of the show-cause notices and none was found by any of the lower authorities. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the assessee cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.

Decision: - Appeal partly allowed.

*****

Customs Section:

Case: - Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v/s ANZ International

Citation: - 2009 (243) ELT 40 (Kar.)

Issue: - When the appeal against earlier order is dismissed and it is not appealed then the earlier order is binding on revenue. The appeal before High Court against the second order is not sustainable.

Brief Facts: - Respondent is a 100% EOU engaged in manufacture of parts of agricultural and farm equipment which are chargeable to ‘nil’ rate of duty by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent files refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for refund of unutilised cenvat credit availed by the respondent for the period March 2005 to March 2007 in respect of certain inputs used in the manufacture of their final product. The refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the respondent was not eligible for the availment and utilisation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as their final product was not chargeable to duty under the Tariff Act. Four other claims of respondent filed for the period October 2005 to March 2006, April 2006 to June 2007, July 2006 to September 2006 and October 2006 to November 2006 were rejected. It was further held by the Assistant Commissioner that the benefit availed in terms of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules could not be extended to the respondent, as the exports made by the unit were not covered under the Rule. The Commissioner (A) in appeal set aside the orders. Aggrieved the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the ground that in respect of the same respondent, the earlier appeals filed had been dismissed in Final Order No. 1305 and 1306/2007, dated 14.11.07 [2008 (224) ELT 573 (T)] against which the appeal filed before the High Court was dismissed by order dated 28.06.2008 [2009 (233) ELT 40 (Kar)]. The revenue has filed appeal before the High Court.

Petitioner’s Contentions: - Revenue contended that in view of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat Credit is not available to the respondent, but, however, the Tribunal accepted the respondent’s contention and granted refund on the ground that 100% EOU is entitled to take Cenvat credit of the duty on the inputs procured indigenously, when they are not in a position to utilise the same, they are entitled for the benefit of refund of the same under Cenvat Credit Rules.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The High Court held that the Tribunal had relied upon the reasoning given in an earlier final order which had upheld the respondent’s contention and had allowed the appeal. The appeal filed against this order before the High Court was dismissed. There is no material produced to show that appeal against the said order was preferred before the Apex Court or whether there is a stay of the aid order. Since the issue raised in this appeal is covered by the earlier decision which was upheld by the High Court, following the precedent, appeal is rejected.

Decision: - Appeal rejected.

*****

Case: - M/s Sunstar Impex (PVT) Ltd and others Vs CC, Kandla

Citation: - 2009-TIOL-1881-CESTAT-AHM

Issue: - When the supplier knew that the goods are sent to fake unit then he cannot plead that the liability is on buyer of goods.

Brief Facts: - The appellant is a trading unit located in Kandla SEZ. They imported polyester fabric, polyester woven dyed fabric under bill of entry without payment of duty in terms of Notification no. 137/2007-Cus, dated 19.1.2000. Revenue started conducting investigation upon receipt of information that the goods imported by appellant were being sold in the open marked under the guise of clearances supposedly made to another 100% EOU- M/s D.D. Trading Co. (hereinafter referred to as DDTC) and re-warehousing certificate were produced by them statements of proprietor of DDTC, Directors of the appellant company, Range superintendent having jurisdiction over DDTC and the transportation company were recorded. As a result of the investigation it was found that the appellants had diverted the duty free procured material in the local market under the guise of removal of the same to DDTC. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant duty was demanded and penalty imposed of identical amount. Penalty was also imposed on the directors of the appellant company. Appellant have come up in appeal against the impugned order.

Appellant’s Contentions: - The appellants argued that as they have cleared the goods to DDTC the duty liability stood shifted to the DDTC and cannot be confirmed against them. Reliance was placed on judgments given in the cases of M/s Santogen Textile Mill Ltd Vs Commissioner [2007(214) ELT 386(T)] which was followed by the Tribunal in case of Vikram Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [2008(226) ELT (Tri-Ahmd)].

Appellant argued that it is the consignee of the goods who is liable to pay duty as held by the tribunal in the above relied upon cases.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the evidence available on records have established beyond doubt that the goods never received by DDTC but in fact DDTC was established with an ulterior motive to show them as the recipient of goods and the entire exercise right from procuring CT-3 Certificate by DDTC was being done by the agents representing the appellant. It was fully established that the conditions of the notification were never fulfilled.

The Tribunal further held that in the relied in both the relied upon decisions, it was found that the goods were cleared against proper CT-3 certificates and re-warehousing certificates were produced. In these cases the forgery was done by the recipient unit and goods were diverted in the local market by the recipient unit instead of bringing the same in their 100% EOU. In these circumstances, the Tribunal had held that once the goods are delivered by the consigner against valid CT-3 certificates he looses control over the same and subsequent diversion by the consignee cannot fasten duty liability on the consigner. But in the instead case the goods were never delivered to DDTC. DDTC only existed on paper and not in reality. The appellant knew that the consignee was a fake entity. As such they can not shift their liability to DDTC. Order in demanding duty and imposing penalty is upheld.

Decision: - Appeals rejected

*****

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/09-10/19

Post a Comment

Query