C.C.(Preventive), New Delhi vs Mr. Dayanad Sharma
- CitationAppeal No. C/54821/2014-CU[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A person against whom a demand for customs duty is raised cannot be validly subjected to that demand where the investigation does not establish that he is the importer of the goods, or that he had any connection with the customs clearance of the goods; a demand fixed on such a person is therefore unsustainable. Where the original adjudicating authority has not properly investigated and established that the respondent was the importer of the subject goods, the revenue's case against him fails on the facts as found, and the appellate authority's setting aside of the adjudication order on that ground is not open to interference in further appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
Appeal No. C/54821/2014-CU[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CC(A) CUS/440/2014, dated 19.06.2014 passed by the C.C.(Appeals), New Delhi]
C.C.(Preventive), New Delhi Appellant
Vs.
Mr. Dayanad Sharma Respondent
Appearance
Mr. RK Mishra, DR - For Appellant
Ms. PK Chadha, Advocate - For Respondent
CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Final Order No.53993/2015, dated 04.09.2015
Per Mr. S.K. Mohanty :
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 19.06.2014, where under the appeal of the respondent against the adjudication order dated 29.01.2013 was set aside. While setting aside the adjudication order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into account the submissions of the appellant that the liquor bottles purchased were from outside Kolkata airport and that in the past occasions, the appellant himself had accepted that the goods are not of smuggled origin.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the respondent holding that a person cannot be served with a notice of duty demand, if he has no connection with Customs clearance of such goods. Investigation in the present case does not show that the appellant is an importer of the subject goods. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that no proper investigation has been done by the original authority, establishing the fact that the respondent was the importer of the subject goods.
4. In view of the fact that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has properly analysed the legal position vis-a-vis the factual aspect involved in the case and held that the respondent herein was not the importer of the goods, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
[Operative portion pronounced in the open court]
(S.K. Mohanty)
Member (Judicial)
SSK
-2-
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free