9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich would mean that Rule 5 & Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules needs to be applied which contemplates for the application of contemporaneous value; which adjudicating authority has done so, we have no hesitation in upholding the findings of the adjudicating authority. The impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity - appeal rejected - decided against revenue. - C/179, 959 & 960/06-MUM - A/85487-85489/17/CB - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri M K Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (AR) for Appellant Shri N D George, Advocate for Respondent ORDER Per M V Ravindran All these three appeals raise a common question of law, hence they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of mis-declaration of the value as record by the Customs Authority then value needs to be re-determined. He submits that the Tribunals decision in the case of Sunrise Enterprise Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai - [2011 (274) ELT 200 (Tri.-Mumbai) ] has clearly stated that no further proof is required for department to assess goods particularly if confessional statement was not retracted. It is his submission that the confessional statement in these cases are not retracted. He submits that there being an acceptance of mis-declaration nothing needs to be proved further. 4. Learned Counsel on the other hand would submit that the adjudicating authority was correct in dropping the proceedings initiated by the show-cause notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... casted an aspersion on the value of the goods declared by the respondent, hence show-cause notice was issued. 7. We find that the entire pleadings of the learned Departmental Representative in opposing the impugned is only on the ground that proprietors of respondent have clearly admitted that there was undervaluation of the imported goods and such confessional statement need not be proved. We note that there is nothing on record to indicate that supporting evidence was produced by the department. 8. On this background, we note that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order has correctly come to conclusion that the proceedings initiated needs to be dropped. We find that Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sainul Abi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
