9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om trade opinion that the recovered betel nuts on the basis of their shape, size and appearance appeared to be of foreign origin. on receipt of the show cause notice, both the appellants approached the Settlement Commission whereby the appellants admitted their liability on the ground that the appellants are the actual importers and also accepted and admitted the allegations and charges made in the show cause notice. In view of the admission made by both the appellants before a statutory authority i.e. the Settlement Commission regarding misdeclaration of the goods imported in the name of M/s. R.R. Exports, we find no merit in the contention of the appellants - Decided against assessee. - Appeal Nos.C/433 & 434/08-Mum - - - Dated:- 16-7-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipping Agency, Custom House Agent of M/s. R.R. Exports. Shri Manish R. Sangani, partner of the CHA, in his statement admitted that the goods imported by M/s. R.R. Exports were dealt with by them and all the documents for clearance were received either from Shri Shankarlal Sharma or Shri Manu Advani. The draft in respect of the customs duty was also deposited by Shri Shankarlal Sharma. The CHA also admitted that the goods were branded goods whereas the same were declared by the importer as unbranded. On this evidence, show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty of ₹ 15,94,827/- and for imposition of penalties. 3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. 4. The contention of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue is that in view of the admission made before the Settlement Commission, the appellants have no case hence the impugned order is rightly passed. 7. We find that the appellants are not disputing the fact that the goods were imported in the name of M/s. R.R. Exports. As per the statement of the partner of the CHA, the documents were handed over by the appellant Shri Shankarlal Sharma. Customs duty was also paid by Shri Shankarlal Sharma. During investigation also, Shri Shankarlal Sharma paid ₹ 9,00,000/- towards the duty. The only contention of the appellant Shri Umesh Advani is that the goods in question were unbranded goods and there is no evidence on record to show that the same were branded goods hence penalty is not sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
