9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try totalling at Rs. 8,83,33,642/- for assessment of CVD under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and redetermined the RSP based on the findings of the investigations for all the 33 Bills of Entry totalling at Rs. 11,20,08,485/- for assessment of CVD under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He accordingly confirmed the differential amount of Additional duty of Customs (CVD) and other duties of Customs of Rs. 24,35,227/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 together with interest and imposed equivalent penalty of Rs. 24,35,227/-. He ordered for appropriation of Rs. 5 lakhs, which was deposited by the applicants and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, according to them, it will not be within the purview of Customs to demand any duty in respect of the same and it will be an activity beyond Customs area. The applicants also contended that they have not altered the RSP in all the cases and that the RSP was modified only in a few cases to accommodate the request of the dealers. They further submitted that the Commissioner has ordered appropriation of Rs. 5,00,000/- through the enforcement of the Bank guarantee. However, they have not furnished any Bank guarantee to the Department and they are not aware of which Bank guarantee, the Commissioner is referring to in the Order portion. 3. The learned JDR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. He stated that the differential d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erential duty involved is Rs. 24,35,227/-. We note that the Customs jurisdiction was not challenged by the applicants before the Commissioner. Hence, no findings have been recorded by the Commissioner in this regard. However, prima facie, it appears that the Customs does have jurisdiction as has been rightly pointed out by the learned JDR. Further, the applicants contention that they have not altered the RSP in all the cases does not seem to be prima facie correct as it has been clearly brought out that there were price lists for three years i.e. 1-12-04, 1-4-05 and 1-1-07 and the Proprietor of the applicants has admitted that the MRP mentioned in the price list is the actual price at which the goods are sold in the market. It is seen tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
