2010 (7) TMI 409

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cate, for the Appellant. Shri M.B. Bal, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this Appeal against the demand of differential Customs duty of Rs. 5,11,447.82 (Rupees Five Lakhs Eleven Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Seven and Eighty Two paisa only) and imposition of penalty on the Appellant firm. The Appellants are also c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ect of two grades Revenue assessed the goods at the value declared by the Appellant. The contention is that in the present case Appellant filed 4 (four) bills of entries where the same grade of silk fabric has been supplied by different suppliers. The contention is that the copy of invoices were not supplied to the Appellants which is the basis for the enhancement. It is also submitted that nothin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been conducted at the Appellant's end and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the Appellant's premises, even statement was not recorded in the present case. Further we find that the same grade of silk fabric has been imported from other suppliers and the enhancement of value of silk fabric imported from other suppliers on the basis of invoices of one supplier is not sustainable. In view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X