9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice which was the main foundation for enhancing the value in the adjudication order. From the submissions and documents placed on record by Ld. AR, it has become clear that there was no invoice at the rate of US$ 114.00 and there was only proforma invoices on the basis of which the value was enhanced by the adjudicating authority. Hence, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly concluded that the Department has not been able to adduce any evidence of contemporaneous import to support the value determined by the adjudicating authority. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/445/2011 - A/61903/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 26-7-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Satyapa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice was issued to M/s Tanmay International proposing confiscation for mis-declaration of goods and rejection of the declared value and enhancement of value and demanding customs duty of ₹ 14,51,114/- along with interest and proposing penalties under Section 112, 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants and penalties under Section 114 AA of the Custom Act, 1962 on Sh. Shashiranjan Kumar, Sh. H. Sh. Chadha and Sh. Neeraj Mishara and M/s. H.K. Dass Co. The matter was adjudicated and value was enhanced to ₹ 59,06,040/- in the goods were confiscated and auction to release the goods on redeemed the goods on payment of RF of ₹ 6 lakhs was given. Custom duty of ₹ 14,51,114/- was also demanded from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deepak Bansal Vs. CCE, Kanpur - 2012 (279) ELT 066 (Tri.-Delhi) 4. Sara Electro Acoustics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi - 2009 (240) ELT 0448 (Tri-Del) 5. Mohan Sales (India) Vs. CC, ICD, TKD, New Delhi - 2004 (163) ELT 0330 (Tri-Del) 6. Puja Poly Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Calcutta - 2001 (131) ELT 0200 (Tri-Kol) 7. Mohan Sales (INDIA) Vs. CC, Calcutta - 2000 (121) ELT 0736 (Tri.) 8. Kishandas Sons Vs. CC, Mumabi - 1999 (112) ELT 0227 (Tri.) 9. CC, Calcutta Vs. Swami Narayan Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - 1999 (108) ELT 0470 (Tri) 10. Samrat Enterprises Vs. CC, Mumbai - 2000 (122) ELT 0423 (Tri.) 4. Heard the parties and perused the records. 5. We find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 30.09.2009 of the same supplier contending that this is not an invoice but it is PROFORMA INVOICE as boldly written in capital letter on the said alleged invoice and that in the absence of actual import, proforma invoice/quotation cannot be made basis for enhancing value and that even otherwise the proforma invoice, without actual import relied upon by the department in respect of different goods both in quantity and quality wise. The Above objection of the appellant No.1 are quite convincing and tenable because as the photocopy enclosed by the appellant No.1 alongwith their invoice No.HW-IN301 dt. 30.09.2009 is infact Proforma Invoice and as per the terms and conditions mentioned on this documents dated Sept. 30, 2009, the shipment wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
