9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that there were some differences in the facts of the two matters. We note that insofar as the validity of the licence is concerned the differences are minor. In the earlier appeal covers and shells for cassettes were involved but in the present appeal shells for cassettes are involved. In both the appeals the licence produced did hot admittedly mention the end-product as cassettes. 3. Shri Gujral in his arguments submitted that before Collector (Appeals) the appellants sought neither a show cause notice nor a personal hearing. Therefore, he pleaded that no extra reasons should be allowed to be advanced now by the Department. 4. We take note of this. We have considered the arguments. We first consider the question of the validi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import licence to cover the goods imported in this case. We, therefore, hold that the findings of the Collector that the import licence did not cover the goods is correct. We uphold the same and reject the appeal in this regard. 5. Insofar as valuation is concerned Shri Gujral submitted that as in the earlier appeal there is no evidence recorded in the order just to justify the increase in the assessable value of the goods as ordered by the Collector. He pleaded that a perusal of the Collector s finding would show that the under valuation of the goods has not been proved. In the circumstances the learned Advocate submitted that the penalty should be reduced and fine set aside. 6. Shri A.S.R. Nair, the learned SDR argued that the Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants to furnish proof of their claim or got the goods examined. The reference to Marda Agents incorporated in the Collector s order is too vague to justify any conclusion about under invoicing. In these circumstances we hold that the Department did not prove under valuation. We, therefore, allow the appeal insofar as valuation of the goods is concerned. 8. The Collector imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) in lieu of confiscation. The value of the goods was a little less than Rs. 74,0007/-. The margin of profit at the relevant time was stated to be 50%. It is also submitted that subsequent to the importation of these goods similar goods were placed under OGL as a result of which the margin declined further. Also, we have set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
