9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Clearance of the goods was claimed against REP licences. Show cause notice dated 7-11-1986 was issued alleging that the appellants had misdeclared the description of goods as shoulder pads and these were also lining and inter lining material. It was also alleged that the other material was of width 90 cms. and hence not covered by the REP licences produced which permitted import of goods not exceeding 87-1/2 cms. width and required a specific licence. By an addendum, dated 27-12-1986, a paragraph was added stating that the prices for the goods supplied by M/s. Helsatex W. Germany as obtained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi were DM 18 50 per 100 metres for the first item as against their declared price of DM 14.70 per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding information not cited originally by filing in the lacuna in the show cause notice and adducing additional evidence and going beyond the purview of the show cause notice is not valid. He then contended that the penalty of Rs. 10,000 for import of such small value is excessive. The penalty is actually unwarranted. The learned counsel pleaded, citing decisions in support of his submissions. 3. Rebutting the arguments, Smt. Ruchira Pant, learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the personal hearing is part of the adjudication process and the Collector had, during the hearing, shown to the appellants copies of the invoices relied upon. There has been no failure of the procedural requirements. She referred to the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another importer of Bangalore who, are stated to be their sister concern. The Collector had rightly rejected their contention that such imports by their sister concern were of samples which are priced higher than regular prices. He has correctly observed that samples may even be supplied free of charge or at nominal price by suppliers who would be keen to introduce the goods in the market. The plea was taken before us that the evidence regarding the price adopted for assessment was not relied upon in the show cause notice and the order went beyond the scope of the notice. On this the learned SDR had submitted that the invoice of similar imports was shown by the Collector during the hearing and they had made their submissions thereon. She h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
