Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (9) TMI 427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sant Loke, Accountant of M/s. HMG Industries Ltd. were also present at the time of hearing. 2. The ld. Advocate submitted that as per the direction given by the Hon ble Commission vide order dated 20-8-2001, the applicant has filed a miscellaneous application dated 4th September, 2001 and submitted a copy of the Adjudication Order passed by Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva imposing Redemption Fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- and copy of the appeal filed by the applicant before the Hon ble CEGAT against the order of the Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva. The Hon ble CEGAT vide their order dated 29-12-1998 had dismissed both the appeals filed by the applicant as well as the department, reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 444 (Tri.) i.e. HMG Industries Lt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... packaging material would fall under para 25. But the Hon ble CEGAT did not accept this contention. The Hon ble CEGAT vide their order dated 29-12-1998 had dismissed both the appeals filed by the applicant as well as the department reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 444 (Tri.) i.e. HMG Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 26-9-1997 was issued by the department alleging that the Chartered Engineer s certificate was manipulated thereby concealing the assessable value by an amount of Rs. 92,04,994/- and evading a duty of Rs. 25,04,099.90. During the investigation, the applicant had deposited Rs. 32 lakhs on 3-1-1994. 6. The Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva adjudicated the case and confirm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e further prayed the Commission that the invoice value which was taken by the Commissioner should be accepted and no penalty should be imposed. 10. Nobody appeared from the Revenue i.e. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. 11. The Commission has gone through the records of the case. 12. The facts of the case are, the applicant M/s. HMG Industries Ltd., had filed a B/E No. 1564, dt 20-4-1996 for clearance of second hand 12 Roll Super Calendering machine under GCL. The applicant had declared the CIF Value as DM Rs. 124000/-. 13. On the issue of ITC licence, the case was subjected to adjudication. The Importer waived the issue of a show cause notice. The case was adjudicated by the then Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva, who, vide his .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 32,25,734/-. 16. The Department also went in appeal against the earlier O-I-O dated 15-6-93 of the Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva, inter alia, on the basis that investigations subsequent to the Collector s Order have shown that the value of the goods was under declared and the Chartered Engineer s certificate, showing the value of the machine obtained by manipulation and not containing facts and that the machine itself was sold by the importer for Rs. 93 lakhs. The Department appeal urged the Hon ble CEGAT that the redemption fine ought to be increased and penalty proposed. 17. The Hon. CEGAT, vide Order dated 29-12-1998 [reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 444 (Tri.)] found no justification for upsetting the Order of the Collector and di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Nhava Sheva be quashed and/or set aside. (b) That it may be held that goods, in question are assessable on invoice value as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules read with Sec 14(1) of CA, 62. (c) That it may be further held that no penalty is imposable on the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) That the applicants may restrain the respondent from adjusting the duty of Rs. 25,04,100/- from the deposit of Rs. 32 lakhs paid under protest by the applicants till the Appeal filed is heard and disposed of. (e) That it may be held that the Applicants are not liable to pay the differential duty of Rs. 25,04,100/- and consequently the deposit of Rs. 32 lakhs made under protest be allowed to be returned. 21. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates