9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed penalties upon the appellants as under :- S. No. Appeal No. O/O. No. Duty Penalty 1. C/V-148/ 95/CAL 72/CUS/BBSR/93/COLL-6/95 Dated 1-6-1995 Rs. 1,21,148.00 Rs. 60,000.00 2. C/V-149/95 70/CUS/BBSR/93/COLL-13/95 Dated 31-3-1995 Rs. 4,84,812.00 Rs. 2,42,000.00 3. C/V-150/95 169/CUS/BBSR/93/COLL-14/95 Dated 29-6-1995 Rs. 44,037.00 Rs. 22,000.00 4. C/V-160/95 167/CUS/BBSR/93/COLL-16/95 Dated 27-6-1995 Rs. 99,605.00 Rs. 49,000.00 5. C/V-161/95 168/CUS/BBSR/93/COLL-15/95 Dated 29-6-1995 Rs. 1,14,976.00 Rs. 72,000.00 3. One of the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that in Contract dated 10-8-90, M/s. M.S.T.C. agreed to sell the goods in question to the appellants at the price of US $ 175.62 per M.T. and this is the price at which the foreign supplier had agreed to sell the goods to M/s. M.S.T.C. He also submits that the Inspection Charges of US $ 0.35 per M.T. and Agency Commission of US $ 0.50 per M.T. were to be paid separately and the Invoice raised by the foreign supplier was to the tune of US $ 174.77 per M.T. As regards the Certificate of sale, M/s. M.S.T.C. have declared the selling of the said goods to the appellants on high-sea-sale basis expressing the price in US dollars. In the final invoice issued by M/s. M.S.T.C., the price is again charged in US dollar and in the bill of entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as provided therein, for conversion of foreign currency into Indian rupee, are mandatory and have to be adhered to by applying the rate of exchange notified by the Central Government as in force on the date of filing of the bill of entry. The conversion done by M/s. M.S.T.C. for charging the appellants depending upon their own method, may be relatable to the booking rates, with bankers and cannot be pressed into services for converting the foreign exchange into Indian Currency for the purpose of calculating the assessable value. As such, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Advocate for the appellants. 7. Another point involved in Appeal No. C/V-161/95 is as to whether the stamp duty affixed on the documents is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- (b) Service charges payable to MSTC @ 2.5% of the value of goods as per (a) above. However, we find that the appellants have nowhere contended that the factum of payment of Service Charges was endorsed on the bill of entry. The Tribunal in the case of Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. v. C.C., Visakhapatnam reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 535 (Tribunal) has observed that in the absence of endorsement on the bill of entry, the allegations of misstatement and suppression are proved. As admittedly, the said factum was not endorsed on the bill of entry, following the ratio of the Tribunal s decision in the case of Godavari Fertilizers (supra), we hold the demands not to be hit by limitation. 11. However, we find that in the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
