9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant claimed the benefit of duty exemption in terms of Customs Notification No.21/2002 by executing an undertaking to produce an end-use certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. The declared value was US $ 273 per MT CIF. The appellant submitted original documents and pre-inspection certificate from approved agency as per Appendix 28 of Handbook of Procedure as required for import of scrap. The goods were assessed on second check procedure and examination order was issued for 25% of the cargo. The declared value of 2 consignments was Rs. 61,22,409/-. In respect of bill of entry No.167746 dated 19.10.2005 on random examination of goods in two selected agencies, it was reported that in one container ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the case was remanded to the Commissioner of Customs for the purpose of considering whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section (2) of Section 120 of Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter Commissioner of Customs vide order dated 6.6.2008 has confiscated 356.94 MTS of the goods of prime quality valued at Rs. 54,27,451/- under Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 3.75 lakh. Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakh on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. After the decision of the Commissioner, the appellant filed a refund application for refund of penalty of Rs. 1.75 lakh and Rs. 1,94,315/- as duty. A certificate dated 16.7.2009 from the Chartered Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating authority could not draw any meaningful conclusion from the Chartered Accountant s certificate and unjust enrichment cannot be comprehensively ruled-out. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the records, I am of the considered opinion that both the authorities have not given any reason for not accepting the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the Cost Accountant and they have not given any reason as to why the same is not material for deciding the question of unjust enrichment. In view of this, I am of the considered opinion that this case needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to consider both the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
