9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted facts need not be proved as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Govindasamy Raghupathy - [1997 (6) TMI 356 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. In the present case, the appellant has not led any evidence to show that the value admitted by him is incorrect. Therefore, the adoption of the value as admitted by the appellant in the facts of the case cannot be faulted. Consequently, the appellant is liable to discharge the duty liability. Inasmuch as the value has been misdeclared, imposition of penalty is also sustainable in law - Decided against assessee. - C/102-104/2004-MUM - Final Order Nos. A/2362-2364/2013-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 12-12-2013 - Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (T) and Anil Choudhary, Member (J) Shri H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. A69 (S.C.). It is the contention of the Advocate that the ratio of the said decision should apply to the facts of the present case and therefore, loading of value done by the Revenue is unsustainable in law. 4. Learned Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the facts in the present case are different and distinguishable from the facts involved in Orient Enterprises case. He submits that in the present case the appellant had admitted to the undervaluation of the goods at the time of importation and stated that they had under-invoiced both the consignments to the extent of 50% of the invoice values. The appellant also waived the show cause notice and thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this statement has not been retracted. The appellant subsequently also did not lead any evidence to show that the value accepted by him is not true and correct and the accepted value was on the higher side compared to contemporaneous imports of similar/identical goods. 5.2 In the Orient Enterprises case (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the importer therein even though had admitted undervaluation, subsequently led the evidence by way of 4 Bills of Entry in respect of contemporaneous imports and established that the values adopted for the purpose of assessment was higher when compared to value accepted by the customs in respect of similar/identical goods. It was in that context, it was held that when the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
