9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , hence the goods were liable to confiscation but was to be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2 crores, reduced from ₹ 6.5 crores imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. Held that:- Insofar as the order of CESTAT on merits is concerned, we do not find any fault therein. However, at the same time, we are also of the view that there may be some dispute about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chi, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Ms. Sujita Srivastava and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates, for the Appearing Parties. ORDER Civil Appeal No. 4433 of 2006 : The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) challenging the Final Order dated July 25, 2006 [2006 (206) E.L.T. 737 (Tribunal)] passed by the Customs, Excise and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequently the differential duty to be demanded and recovered from the appellant in respect of the subject imported equipments. On the basis of this parroted determination of derived value of the imported equipments, the CESTAT further purported to hold that there was alleged undervaluation of the imported equipments by the appellant and, hence the goods were liable to confiscation but was to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Bill of Entry of the aforesaid equipment was shown as DM 13.5 million. The Department has stated that the price should have been DM 21.27 million. 5. Without going into the details in this behalf, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served by reducing the said price to DM 17 million. The order of CESTAT is modified to the aforesaid extent allowing the appeal partly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
