9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Deva, Member (J) (Oral)]. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 38/2000, dated 14-11-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. 2. Shri Kumaraswamy, learned Counsel appearing the appellants submitted that the issue relates to valuation. In this context he drew our attention to the finding portion of the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce evidence relating to contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods during the relevant period so that the same may be considered for determination of the assessable value in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Goods) Rules, 1988. The appellants have failed to do so. It is evident that no goods can be available in the intern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants are liable to penal action. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine and the penalty are reduced to Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. 3. Shri Kumaraswamy vehemently argued that the party has challenged the price list supposed to be relied upon by the Department and no clear finding has been given. Further more the benefit in terms of Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the said price list has been challenged by the Party. However, it was submitted by the party that copy of the price list was not given but it was shown during the adjudication proceedings. In view of these discrepancies as pointed out by the appellant s Counsel and in the absence of clear finding with reference to the price list and the benefit in terms of Notification No. 94/96 we are of the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
