2017 (4) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e enhanced based upon the prices of the original manufacturer? Held that: - The appellant cleared the goods provisionally at the enhanced value. Subsequent adjudication proceedings had confirmed enhancement of the value and imposed a penalty of ₹ 4.25 lakhs which was reduced by the first appellate authority to ₹ 3 lakhs - We find no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in-Appeal No. 489/2005/MCH/JC/VB/05, dated 10-10-2005. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. Since the appeal is of 2005, we take up the appeal for disposal. 3. Heard the learned departmental representative and perused the records. 4. We find that the issue involved in this case is whether the goods imported and declared as components/parts are to be considered as a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ents which are imported cannot be assessed as a complete unit, assessed the same as parts and components. Revenue is not in appeal against such an order passed by both the lower authorities. 6. As regards the misdeclaration of the value, we find that the first appellate authority has specifically recorded in his order that the price declared by the appellant of US $ 16.30 is less and the origin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X