9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an appeal dated 30-11-1990 confirming the enhancement of valuation of the goods from Rs. 66,233/- to Rs. 6,64,530/- in terms of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 14(1) and 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act. The goods were confiscated and released on redemption fine of Rs. 1.5 lacs under Section 125 of the Customs Act. Personal penalty of Rs. 3 lacs was also imposed under 112(a) for misdeclaration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . To this effect the appellant had produced a clarificatory letter from the suppliers and had also filed evidence in support of their contentions. It is the contention of the appellants that the Commissioner has noted all the details and the points raised by them in the impugned order. However, he has not taken the evidence into consideration but has proceeded to assess the goods at HK dollar 3.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion made in the show cause notice, it is seen that the allegation is based on the wrong declaration filed by mistake by the supplier. Subsequent evidence was produced to show that the manufacture of the goods had furnished correct value. The evidence produced has not been taking into consideration by the Commissioner, while deciding the case. Therefore, there is a non-application of mind while dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
