9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Revenue has not given any substantial material and evidence to differ from the finding given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in appeal - The impugned order-in-appeal further, analyses the valuation aspect in detail and conclude that the Department did not produce any evidence to reject the transaction value in the present case. The impugned order arrives at the finding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-10-2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), whereunder he set aside the order-in-original dated 23-10-2010 passed by Additional Commissioner of Customs. The order-in-original passed by Additional Commissioner of Customs sustained the charges of misdeclaration of value in the case of goods viz. Fancy Glass Beads as declared by the respondent viz. M/s. Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edemption fine of ₹ 8 lakhs under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and confirmed differential duty of ₹ 2,68,621/- along with interest and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 3 lakhs on the respondent importer. 3.1 The respondent filed appeal against the order-in-original passed by Additional Commissioner before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who set aside the said order-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ading 7018 10 20. The Revenue has not given any substantial material and evidence to differ from the finding given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in appeal. 6. The impugned order-in-appeal further, analyses the valuation aspect in detail and conclude that the Department did not produce any evidence to reject the transaction value in the present case. The impugned order arri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
