9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant period, they have ignored the word "coated". This shows clear intention of the appellant that they intentionally suppressed the correct description of the goods to mislead the department - there is suppression of facts on the part of the appellant therefore the demand for longer period was rightly confirmed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/723/05 - A/94511/16/CB - Dated:- 13-12-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. T. Vishwanathan, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Kamal Puggal, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Per Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that appellant has imported Calcium Carbonate and declared the same under CTH 2530.90 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry mentioned at Sn No. 1 to 49 of the Annexure to Show Cause Notice amounting to ₹ 68,30,147/- under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 from them. iii) The interest at an appropriate rate under Section 28 AB of Customs Act, 1962 is also ordered to be recovered from them. iv) I impose a penalty of ₹ 68,30,147/- on M/s. Superpack, Nagpur under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Shri. T. Vishwanathan, Ld. Counsel for the appellant urther submits that similar goods were imported by the appellant on the earlier occasion wherein the goods was classifiable under CTH 28.36. He further submits that part of the demand is time bar on the ground that appellant have been importing the same goods for manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd [2002(141) ELT 392(Tri. Del.)] (g) Hyderabad Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India[1995(78) ELT 641 (SC.)] (h) Commr. C. Ex Cus., Bhabaneshwar-I Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. [2003(154) ELT 343(S.C.)] (i) Birla NGK Insulators Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus,, Ahmedabad[2014(309) ELT 501 (Tri. Ahmd.)] 3. Shri. Karnal Puggal, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that there is clear suppression of facts on the part of the appellant for the reason that they earlier in their earlier Bill of Entry declared the goods as coated calcium carbonate whereas during the relevant peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed the correct description of the goods to mislead the department. We also observed that the Ld. Commissioner even after considering this tribunal earlier order dated 22-2-2005 on limitation observed as under: The Tribunal, in their Order No. A/230-231/WZB/2005-C-II passed on 22-2-2005, further observed that since the case relates to classification it is difficult to impute any willful intention for any misrepresentation or suppression. In this regard I would like to elaborate certain facts suppressed by the Noticee detected by CIU during investigation. In this connection, it is reiterated that the scrutiny of page 165 to 167 of the file no. 2 appearing at withdrawal memo dated 12-12-2003 drawn for withdrawal of records of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the vital fact about the coating with stearic acid in all documents. From the records, it is clear that the importer has imported subject goods by willfully mis-stating the correct nomenclature and by suppressing of fact( as discussed here-inabove) with sole intention to evade payment of duty. Importer's intent to evade duty in spite of clear knowledge about correct classification is also clearly brought out from the records withdrawn from the importer's factory. These correspondence papers prove importer's mens rea in the present case beyond doubt. Therefore an appeal to the Hon'ble High Court is being preferred by the department against this order of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 22-2-2005 so far as it relates to the obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
