9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d contention on the short ground that the appellant did not raise this point at the time when the conditional order was passed Once these things are actually borne out by records, it was not correct on the part of the Tribunal to take a stand that at the time of passing the conditional order, the plea regarding bank guarantee was not raised. Even if the plea regarding the bank guarantee was not raised, this was not a case where a pre-deposit condition, even if it is leviable, cannot be twice the amount of penalty, which was the only item that was assessed even in the order on appeal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to succeed. - Matter restored before the tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion reads as follows : Accordingly, I pass the following order : ORDER i) I reject the declared value of the subject vehicle i.e 63000 USD (CIF) as per Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. ii) I re-determine the value of the subject vehicle as USD 98936 as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3(1) read with Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. iii) I confirm the demand of differential duty of ₹ 46,85,350/- (Rupees forth six lakhs eighty five thousand three hundred and fifty only) as per proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. iv) I confirm the demand of interest on differenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he car is determined at ₹ 49,84,163/- (A.V.). The group may calculate the correct duty as discussed supra and the difference of duty may be collected under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (3) Appropriate interest on the differential duty may be collected under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. (4) The differential duty so arrived should be imposed as penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the appellant is given an option to pay the reduced penalty @ 25% so imposed if the same is paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order. (5) The penalty imposed of ₹ 5,00,000/- on the appellant under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is upheld. Order accordingly with the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant did not raise this point at the time when the conditional order was passed. Therefore, the appellant is before us. 10. A careful look at the orders of the Original Authority as well as the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) shows that the only amount quantified to be payable by the appellant is a penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs. The other things such as duty payable, interest on duty, etc., have not yet been quantified. In such circumstances, the appellant was right in contending that his application was not actually an application for waiver of pre-deposit condition, but for waiver of penalty. The fact remains that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 129E in view of the admitted position that the vehicle was seized from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
