9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms Act with an option to pay a redemption fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appellants have a factory at Saki Naka, Bombay, at which factory the appellants refine non-ferrous Metal Waste, Dross Ash and such residues. In their business the Appellants regularly import Graphite Crucibles for use of melting apparatus for melting/refining of non-ferrous metals and residue. They require these crucibles continuously as the life of a crucible varies approximately from 24 hours to 72 hours and they are 25 to 30 crucibles per month. Most of the Crucibles used by them are manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... list dated 1-10-1983 effective up to 31-3-1984 of the manufacturers. In the case on hand the goods were imported through the suppliers after direct negotiation and agreed upon price independent of an intendent and price list. It is to be mentioned here the copies of relevant documents relied upon the Show Cause Notice were given to the appellants. A personal hearing was given to them on 20-4-1987, when Advocates for the importers appeared who explained the difference between the goods in the instant case and the price of goods indicated by the department they sought time for writing to the supplier to explain the difference between invoices raised against them and one raised by them for lower price. The case was fixed on 20-7-1987 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8. Moreover the appellants had desired an adjournment to get an explanation from the manufacturers as to the price difference which the lower authority could have given. 9. Apart from that in the reply to the Show Cause Notice at paragraphs 3.2 to 3.7 the appellants have explained how the price of the goods have been arrived at and also how the reference to contemporary import was incorrect in law which the adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate in the impugned order. 10. Hence in our view the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity as indicated above hence it is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. 11. [Assent per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The Departmental Representative had contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon this material. Further, the copy of the invoice of Jayakant Shah Co. produced by the appellant is unsigned. We are not able to see how the Collector says that this is signed. An unsigned invoice is not an invoice at all. The Collector has relied upon the contemporaneous imports as supporting his conclusion, but again not answered the points made regarding the difference in time and quantity. The statement of Maurya was also not cited in the notice and has not in fact been relied upon by the Collector in coming to this conclusion, although it is mentioned in passing earlier in the order. 13. Therefore, the Collector s order, which is based on evidence which has not been cited in the notice cannot be upheld. 14. Appeal allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
