9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts had raised serious doubts about the procedure adopted with respect to the examination - it was incumbent upon the adjudicating authority to clear and clarify the matter by allowing cross examination of the concerned witnesses - Thus there was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice - denial of cross examination of the officer who examined the pen drive has caused prejudice to the appellants - on this ground alone the order was not sustainable. Matter remanded back to the adjudicatory authority for fresh consideration - The appellant has to be given opportunity to cross examine – decided in favour of assessee - APPEAL No.C/521, 525 to 527/12 & C/661/12 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2013 - Mr. P. R. Chandrasekharan and Mr. Anil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n drive and also confessed to under invoicing of aluminium scrap imported by the firm to the extent of US $ 250 to 300 per MT. The data retrieved from the pen drive related to consignment imported under thirty two Bills of Entry. 2.2 In addition to the above, it was noticed that the appellant firm had imported aluminium scrap under 275 Bills of Entry. In order to quantify the correct value of import, the investigating authority adopted two methods. In respect of the thirty two Bills of Entry, they have taken the values as available in the information retrieved from the pen drive seized during the search operations on 13/10/2006 and also the information given by Shri Raghav Daga. In respect of 275 Bills of Entry, the value of the scrap was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposed to revise the value at Rs.87,68,124/- from the declared value of Rs.70,42,737/- and differential Customs duty amounting to Rs.5,95,413/- is proposed to be confirmed under the provisions of Section 28 ibid along with interest thereon under Section 28AB, and the notice also proposes to impose penalties on the appellant firm and also on the Managing Director, Shri.Raghav Daga. 2.4 The case was adjudicated vide the impugned order and the duty demands were confirmed and penalties were imposed as proposed in the notice. It is against this order, the appellants are before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant made the following submission: 3.1 As per the Panchnama dated 13/10/2006, Flash Drive (Pen drive) No. D33193 belonging to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, on that ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3.2 The second contention of the Ld. Counsel is that in respect of thirty two consignments, the enhancement of the value has been done on the basis of the information said to have been retrived from the pen drive and the statement of Shri Raghav Daga, the Director of the appellant firm. However, in respect of the another 275 consignments, the basis for determination of value is totally different. The value has been arrived at based on the LME prices for the prime metal and giving certain discounts therefrom for various varieties of scrap imported on the basis that there is a co-relation between the prime metal pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price and scrap price and the LME has replied back to them stating that no such study has been conducted by the LME on this basis. 3.5 The Ld. Counsel submits that the determination of value undertaken in the impugned order is not in accordance with the law and consequently, the demand of differential duty along with interest thereon is not sustainable in law. As a result, imposition of penalty on the appellant is also not sustainable. 4. The Ld. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings given in the adjudication order. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 5.1 We are of the view that in view of the violation of principles of natural justice, the appeal itself can be taken up for disposal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has claimed that the value declared by them in respective of their imports is much higher than the values declared by the other importers and accepted by the department. There is no finding with respect to this claim of the appellant by the adjudicating authority. As per the Customs Valuation Rules, if the revenue wants to reject the transaction price and re-determine the same, they have to proceed sequentially through the Rules 4 to 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, i.e. by asking into account the value of identical goods, value of similar goods, deductive method and so on. Even the valuation done under the residuary Rule has to be consistent with the other provisions specified in the Rules. 5.5 In the present case, we find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
