9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S. Nankani, Advocate, for the Appellant. JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The dispute in the present appeal relates to under-valuation of the import of electronic components by three firms, M/s. Martwin Sales Agency, M/s. Martwin Electronics and M/s. Rachna Electronics, with the appellants being the proprietor of all the firms. The said charge and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , broadly tally in all respects with the export declaration filed by the supplier except the value and, as such, the value as disclosed in the said export declaration has to be adopted as the correct assessable value. On the other hand, the appellants have drawn our attention to the detailed reply filed by them as also the Bills of Entry produced by them showing contemporaneous import at the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence of contemporaneous imports. 2. The impugned order has also been assailed on the point of violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no effective opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the appellants. 3. After hearing the ld. DR, we find that the appellants cause appearances before the adjudicating authority on 24-4-2000 and advance arguments. However, before the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. We do not agree with the above reasoning of the adjudicating authority. If the appellant s intention was delay the proceedings, he would not have caused appearance before the previous adjudicating authority. In fact the proceedings had already been concluded and only an order remained to be passed by the previous Commissioner. With the change in the adjudicating authority, it was legally inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
