9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alore. Intelligence was received that the appellants mis-declared the quantity and value of the equipment imported. Investigations revealed that the appellant imported 12 lane equipment declaring the same to be 6 lane equipment. Revenue proceeded against the appellants by issue of show cause notice dated 6-8-2002. The Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order confiscating the bowling alley equipment under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. A redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- was imposed. Differential duty of Rs. 11,46,537/- was demanded under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Interest of Rs. 1,53,907/- was demanded under Section 28AB. A penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- was imposed under Section 112(a). A penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... binding on the Department. The following case laws were relied on : (a) K.P. Verghese v. ITO - 1981 (131) ITR 687 (S.C.) (b) Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) (c) Paulose and Mathen v. Collector - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 264 (S.C.) (d) Paper Products Ltd. - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.) (iv) In the absence of corroborative evidences such as contemporaneous imports, under-valuation cannot be sustained. Garden Silk Mills v. UOI - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 358 (S.C.). (v) The appellants through negotiations obtained a lower price and therefore, this cannot be construed as under-valuation. The case laws relied on Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 3 (SC) and Vellore Roller Flo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n value. 5. The learned JDR reiterated the Order-in-Original. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Revenue s investigation revealed that the bowling alley equipment installed by the appellant is a 12 lane bowling alley equipment consisting of 12 Pin Setter Machines, 12 Ball Return Machines, 12 Lanes, 6 Scorer Units, 12 Monitors, 24 Nos. of Twin Benches, 96 Balls, 288 Pins, Gutters, Cappings, Consumables and other miscellaneous items. But what was declared to the Customs at the time of clearance of the goods was that the equipment is of 6 lanes. After going through the statement of Shri Ravi Madan, Manager. Adjudicating Authority has come to the conclusion that whatever equipment was installed had been imported and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed advocate during the personal hearing. No evidence in the form of expert opinion has been let in. The Adjudicating Authority in Para 111 of his order has dealt with the role of Shri Ravi Madan, in the import of the equipments. There is evidence that he only placed the order for equipment and managed the entire affairs of the appellant company. In these circumstances, he had clearly stated that Shri Ravi Madan is liable for penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962. We agree with his findings. The Adjudicating Authority has dealt with all the points raised by the appellant and given his detailed findings. We hold that the differential duty demand is in order. The goods whose value and quantity were mis-declared are clearly liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
