9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urance purposes - Further, the adjudicating Commissioner has taken into account the confessional statements made by the appellants themselves under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same are clearly admissible as evidence since neither the statements have been retracted nor any complaint has been made to anyone that these were not voluntarily given . Hence, determined the pre-deposit amount to the extent of roughly 1/3rd of the differential duty amount as voluntarily agreed on behalf of the appellants in those cases. - C/652-654/2009 - . S/354-356/2010-WZB/C-II/CSTB - Dated:- 1-12-2010 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Shri D.N. Panda, JJ REPRESENTED BY : Shri Prakah Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri W.L. Hangshin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the findings of the adjudicating authority is not a verbatim reproduction of the show-cause notice as the same refers to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Prakash Shah states that he has taken a ground in his appeal that the order suffers the defect of non-application of mind. 5. The learned JCDR appearing on behalf of the department counters the arguments of the learned Advocate, stating that the adjudicating Commissioner has examined the case in detail and he cannot be faulted for coming to the conclusion that the charges laid against the appellants in the show-cause notice have been substantiated by the evidence gathered by the department, including confessional statements by the appellants. 6. Mr. Prakash Shah, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich, according to the learned Advocate himself, is only about 10% of the insured value. 8. Mr. Prakash Shah, learned Advocate, also states that the adjudicating Commissioner has placed reliance on quoted value for determining the Customs value. However, when asked, the learned Advocate is not able to give any case-wise details as to in which case the insured value has been adopted and in which case the quoted value has been adopted. His main thrust of the argument all along seems to be that the matter should be remanded for re-adjudication. He also states that no reliance should be placed on the statements given by the appellants admitting undervaluation, even though, on a query from the Bench, the learned Advocate states that there has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants themselves under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same are clearly admissible as evidence since neither the statements have been retracted nor any complaint has been made to anyone that these were not voluntarily given. We further note that in a similar group of cases relating to M/s. Surat Metlon Pvt. Ltd, and M/s. I.S. Corporation, heard by us today, we have determined a pre-deposit amount of about Rs. 88 lakhs against the differential duty demand of Rs. 2.45 crores, taking into account Rs. 67,31,200/- paid by the appellants in that case and a bank guarantee of Rs. 11,15,600/- executed in that case, by directing the appellant to pre-deposit another amount of Rs. 10 lakhs subject to verification of the earlier dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
