9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided against assessee-Appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 52746 of 2016 - C/A/50155/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) (Rep by Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Adv.) (Rep. by Sh. Govind Dixit, DR) [Per Dr. Satish Chandra] The present appeal is filed by the assessee-Appellant against the order-in-original no. 23/2016 dated 24.02.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi. 2. It is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal as earlier the Tribunal vide its Final Order No. C/A/56256-56258/2013 dated 02.05.2013 has remanded the matter- for denovo proceedings. In the second round of litigation, the Department has agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and re-determined the value of the car as ₹ 34,66,552/- in terms of Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules and demanded the differential duty amounting to ₹ 16,70,083/- under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 with interest and levied the penalty too. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee-Appellant that the adjudicating authority did not issue any show cause notice to the assessee-Appellant as per the directions of the Tribunal. The adjudicating authority did not consider the written submissions and decided the issue without applying the mind. He also submitted that the price determined by the Department includes the VAT and other charges. He further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacture. Admittedly, the impugned car is of Austria origin, but has been shipped by the supplier to UK from where it was imported to India. On the official website of the car manufacturer, the value of the identical model was shown as 32505 British Pound. Thus, it is evident that the car was imported by producing the Bill of Entry of under-valuation. Therefore, the Department has taken the price of the impugned car as was available on the manufacturer. When it is so, then we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 7. Regarding the allegation that no show cause notice was issued as per the direction of this Tribunal, it appears that the importer assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
