Commissioner of Customs vs D.T. Mehta

K.A. Puj, J.—The Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad has filed this Tax Appeal u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 proposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law for the determination and consideration of this Court:

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the act of omission by the respondent to follow procedure stipulated u/s 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 53 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and non-exercise of powers conferred upon Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to refuse registration, would constitute offence of abetment making the respondent liable for penalty u/s 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 ?

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal about absence of proof involving the respondent in the act of abetment is in disregard of the admissible evidences on record ?

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is at the consequence of the non-consideration of relevant material and admissible evidence on record?

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondent and relieving the respondent from liability of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 is tantamount to reversal of findings recorded by the Commissioner, without evidences for such reversal, and liable to quash and set aside in exercise of power u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962?

The Commissioner of Customs, in fact, preferred four tax Appeals i.e. Tax Appeal Nos. 1975, 1977, 1978 & 1979 of 2006. Except the present Tax Appeal, other three Tax Appeals were heard and disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2008 and those tax appeals were dismissed. However, while dismissing those appeals, the Court has observed that to some extent, the role of Mr. Mehta in this entire transaction is found questionable. For that purpose, the Court has issued notice for final disposal. It is this tax appeal wherein the notice for final disposal was issued by the Court.

Heard Mr. R.J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Customs department and Mr. Paresh M. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.

Though while disposing of the earlier three appeals, we observed that the role of Mr. Mehta - present respondent is somewhat questionable on considering the documents on record and further taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Dave, we found that the respondent - assessee was not aware as to whether the RTO registration was sought for the purpose of exporting the vehicles. Even otherwise, no particular motive was attributed by the authorities even in the show-cause notice. Considering the submissions recorded by the Customs authorities, it appears to us that the respondent has forwarded his report to his higher authorities. Moreover, the export which took place was not on the basis of the original registration book issued by the authorities. The duplicate copy of the original registration book was taken out and zerox copy of the duplicate, after making certain manipulations, was produced at the time of export of the vehicles. We are, therefore, of the view that the role of Mr. Mehta in exporting the vehicles in question cannot have any direct link. The Tribunal has also observed in the order that the Commissioner''s order does not indicate how this would have facilitated the smuggling of the Cars. The Tribunal found from the record that the duplication registration certificate which was presented to the Customs at the time of export showed the year of manufacture to be 1960, 1961 and 1962 and there was nothing to connect the applicant with these years being shown as he has shown the years of manufacture as �not known�. The Tribunal has also observed that whether his functioning as a motor vehicle Inspector was contrary to the guidelines or his department would not be relevant for the purpose of imposition of penalty u/s 114 of the Act unless it can be shown that his acts or omissions have facilitated the export. Neither of these requirements is satisfied. This being the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal after perusing the orders passed by the authorities below, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.

We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.