LexCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) versus STONEMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011] 1 S.C.R. 545 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT} A \/. ---< STONEMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES & ORS. .... (Civil Appeal Nos. 4371-4383 of 2004 etc.} JANUARY 21, 2011 8 [D.K. JAIN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.) ~ CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT, 1975: ... Section 130-A - Application by Revenue - Held: It is for c the party applying for reference to clearly state the question of law which he seeks to be referred -In the instant case, the Revenue did not assail the Tribunal's finding to the effect that the facts in the instant case were similar to those in the cited judgment - Unless the correctness of facts, on the basis D wherein an inference is drawn by the Tribunal, is put in issue, ~ a question of law does not arise from its order - Revenue did not discharge its burden u/s 130-A in as much as it did not specifically challenge the Tribunal's finding as being perverse - Therefore, the High Court was justified in declining to issue E direction to the Tribunal to make a reference u/s 130A. Section 111 (d), 112 and 125 - Confiscation of imported '1--- goods - Redemption fine and penalty - HELD: A standard formula cannot be laid down for imposition of redemption. fine and penalty under the provisions of the Act and each case F has to be examined on its own facts but when a final fact finding body returns a finding that the facts obtaining in each of the cases before it are similar,· and such finding is not questioned, levy of redemption fine or penalty uniformly in all such cases cannot be construed as laying down an absolute G .. -< formula . The respondents, engaged in the business of import of rough marble blocks, classifiable under sub-heading 545 H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R. A 1515.12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The goods imparted by them were confiscated u/s 111 (d) of the Act. ~ They were given option to redeem the goods on payment ... of redemption fine, which was fixed adopting the margin of profit as the basis, u/s 125, with penalty levied u/s B 112(a) of The Act. The appeals of importers were partly allowed by the Customs, Excise and Gold(Control) Appellate Tribunal, observing that the facts in each case were similar to those in Mis Stonemann Marble Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs; decided on 30.1.2002, >- c and, therefore, reduced the redemption fine and penalty ... to 20% and 5% of the CIF value, respectively. The Revenue filed an application u/s 130 A of the Act before the High Court stating the questions for reference by the Tribunal to the High Court. The High Court rejected the ,. D applications on the ground that rio question of law arose from orders of the Tribunal. Aggrieved, Revenue filed the ...I.. appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court ·E HELD: • 1.1 On a bare perusal of the provisions of s. 130 A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, it is manifest that it is for the party applying for reference to clearly state the question ~ F of law which he seeks to be referred to the High Court and then it is for the High Court to consider whether any such question of law stated in the application for reference before it should be directed to be referred. In the instant cases, it is manifest from the format of the questions proposed by the Revenue, for reference t0- the G High Court that the Revenue did not assail the Tribunal's finding to the effect that the facts in the instant cases '>- . were similar to those in Mis. Stonemann Marble Industries. It is a trite proposition that unless the correctness of facts, on the basis whereof an inference !:i ,\ COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) v. 547 STONEMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES is drawn by the Tribunal, is put in issue, a question of law A does not arise from its order. Therefore, the High Court has rightly held that the questions raised by the Revenue for reference could not be said to be questions of law. The Revenue did not specifically challenge the finding of the Tribunal that the facts in the instant cases were B similar to those in Mis. Stonemann Marble Industries, which was essentially a finding of fact. [paras 11 and 15] -4_ [553-B-0; 555-B-C] . -< Beer Sain Vs. Commissioner of Customs (/CD) 2007 (15) SCC 362; Dhirajlal Girdhari/a/ Vs. Commissioner of C ·Income Tax, Bombay AIR 1955 SC 271; K. Ravindranathan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Emakulam 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 244 = 2001 (1) SCC 135; Sudarshan Silks & Sarees Vs. Commissioner of Income
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.