Diganth K.M vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 07-2012 dated 31/07/2012 passed by CC(Appeals), Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Diganth K.M. M.s. Krishnamurthy R/a.no.96, 6th Main G.chandrashekar Block, R.r.nagar, Bangalore 560 098 Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I NULL POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri M.N. Nasendra, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 01/05/2015

Date of Decision: 01/05/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21121 / 2015

Per : B.S.V. MURTHY

Investigations conducted by the Customs initially revealed that appellant was in possession of an imported motor vehicle Kawasaki Ninja of foreign origin. Since the appellant could not explain the proper importation of the bike and taking a view that he did not have valid documents, an offence case was booked against the appellant. As a result of the proceedings initiated, motorcycle was confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs.2 lakhs and a penalty of Rs.50,000/- was imposed on the appellant.

2. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that it is not correct to say that the appellant did not have valid documents. The bike was handed over to the appellant since the purchaser Shri K. Manju did not have money and requested to keep the motorcycle till the due to be paid to the appellant was paid. The vehicle was properly registered by the RTO and therefore the appellant believed that the vehicle had been properly imported. He also submitted that appellant made an application to the Joint Commissioner of Transport (Administration), Bangalore and he was informed that when any imported vehicle is presented for registration, the value is fixed for the purpose of tax on the basis of Bill of Lading only and therefore it cannot be said that the vehicle had been illegally imported. When any statutory authority registered the vehicle based on Bill of Lading, another statutory authority cannot take a stand that it was illegally imported or smuggled.

3. I find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. It was given to him by a film producer because his dues could not be paid. Even then I have to take note that the vehicle had been duly registered and therefore it cannot be said that appellant had knowledge of the vehicle having been illegally imported even if it is so. Further the reply given by the Transport authorities also supports the case of the appellant. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant has smuggled the vehicle and therefore is liable to penalty. In view of the above, appeal is allowed and impugned orders are set aside.

(Operative part of this order pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER

Raja.

3