9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand of duty of Rs. 14,00,085/- against the appellant, confiscated the imported goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and has also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on each of the two appellants. 2. Shri A.K Jayaraj, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that they had imported stock lot of various electronic components including ICs. They filed the Bill of Entry and declared the value of the goods based upon the invoices raised by the trader. However, Revenue entertained a belief that the value declared by the appellants was not correct and hence they conducted investigations. In the course of investigations, the Revenue procured one letter from M/s. Electronic Sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f identical goods and produced the Bill of Entry. Same have not been accepted by the Commissioner on the ground that in case of two bills of entry, the supplier is the same and as such it cannot be considered to be contemporaneous. Third Bill of Entry has been rejected by him by observing that it is not clear as to whether the goods are of Philips make or not. The learned Advocate states that even in their case, the goods are not of philips make. He strongly relies on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd v. CC, Mumbai, 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = 2000 (41) RLT 621 (SC), wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that in the normal circumstances, the transaction value has to be accepted and only exceptions are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emporaneous import inasmuch as there is only an invoice on record without any Bill of Entry or any proof of the goods having been imported at that price. We also note the difference in the quantity of the goods as also the fact that appellants importation is stock lot importation. On the other hand, we note that the appellants have produced contemporaneous imports evidence at the same price which has been declared by them. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no justification for enhancement of assessable value. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Inasmuch as the appeal of M/s. Hi-Tech Impex has been allowed, there is no justification for imposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
