2015 (8) TMI 1114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . R.K. Singh: Appeals have been filed against Orders-in-Appeal No.36-41/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2010, dated 24.09.2010 which upheld the Orders-in-Original as regards the enhancement of the CIF value of imported goods and modified the same as regards the imposition of penalty which was enhanced. 2. When the case was called, there was no representation nor was there any request for adjournment. Even on ea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Revenue also filed appeals on the ground that the redemption fine/penalty was inadequate and sought enhancement thereof. Considering the appeals of both sides, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order. 4. The appellant assessee is its appeal before CESTAT contended that the value was correctly declared and no grounds have been given for rejecting the transaction value and also quest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er (Appeals) for personal hearing but the appellant did not appear for personal hearing before Commissioner (Appeals). Even so, we find that the impugned Order-in-Appeal has discussed the basis of enhancement of value in accordance with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 as also the basis for holding the imported goods to be in the restricted category. It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X