Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (1) TMI 693

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al duty on the ground that appellant's company had undervalued and misdeclared the goods amounting Rs. 87,76,513/- with interest as applicable and has also imposed penalty of Rs. 87,76,513/- on the company and Rs. 10,00,000/- on the Managing Director. 2. Shri T. Vishwanathan, learned advocate, on behalf of the appellants submitted the following points in support of the application for stay and waiver of pre-deposit. 2.1 There was no misdeclaration at all. The heading proposed by the department is 7013 32 00 whereas the heading under which the goods were classified was 7013 39 00. Both headings covered only glassware. 2.2 The supplier had also given a certificate that Opalware is classifiable under sub heading 7013 39 00. 2.3 Opalwar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndicated in February and March 2004 cannot be adopted for the imports made in 2005 onwards. 2.12 The appellants had also submitted export declaration filed by M/s. Wenzhou at the time of export of the goods which show that the price declared by them is correct. 3. In view of the above he submits that they have a very strong case on merits and therefore stay petition may be allowed unconditionally and the requirement of pre-deposit waived. He also submits that they have provided a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,55,69,567/- provided by them for the purpose of provisional release of the goods which were seized at various places and the bond/bank guarantee are still valid. He also made an offer to keep the bank guarantee valid till the appeal is d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the form of e-mail correspondence between another importer KP International with the supplier and recovery of parallel invoices from M/s. VHMPL which support the cases of the Revenue. 4.6 Further, during the search operations, it was revealed that the Opalware was received in two packings. The outer packing had the writing as "Treo", item name, item code, design number, standard packing, case numbers while the inner boxes were found to be printed with details such as premier imported Opalware micro wave proof, dish washer safe, chip resistant and freeze resistant. 4.7 Further, in the bill of entry goods were described as Opalware. The learned S.D.R., submits that in view of the report of the chemical examiner, clear admission by the t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lassware and inner packing described the product as Opalware and further indicating that the product is micro wave proof, dish washer safe, chip resistant and freeze resistant also supports the contention of the Revenue that appellants had misdeclared the description of the goods to show as if it is ordinary glassware to facilitate undervaluation. Further the Managing Director, Commercial Manager, General Manager have all admitted that what they had imported was Opalware and they have also admitted that the price of Opalware is almost double that of glassware. In addition to these evidences, the Revenue has also been able to support the case by producing e-mail correspondence between another importer and the same supplier, parallel invoices .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, is mandatory and in view of the fact that Section 114A of Customs Act is pari materia with Section 11AC, the penalty equal to the duty imposed by the Commissioner also is as per law. (vii) The learned advocate offered to keep the bank guarantee alive till the appeal is decided. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the country cannot be run on bank guaranties and therefore this offer cannot be considered. (viii) The total fine in lieu of confiscation imposed is Rs. 1,20,48,000/- out of which Rs. 62,06,000/- relates to the redemption fine imposed on the goods seized by the officers during the course of investigation and confiscated during the process of adjudication. C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates