9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said liability was incurred - the Court is of the view that in the present case the CCESC ought not to have declined to examine the petitioners applications only because there was no meeting ground between the petitioners and the revenue. The applications filed by the petitioners before it are restored to its file to be taken up for fresh hearing and decision on merits. - W.P. (C) No. 7835 of 2015 with W.P. (C) Nos. 7836, 7838, 9349-9350 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2017 - S. Muralidhar and Chander Shekhar, JJ. Shri Piyush Kumar, Ms. Tanvi Piyush and Ms. Vindushi Shubham, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Satish Aggarwala, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The challenge in these petitions is to the common order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The controversy was as regards the addition of FOB value (towards freight) and a certain percentage towards insurance to the invoice value. According to DRI, these two elements were concealed by the applicants while disclosing the invoice value and this came to light when parallel invoices were found during the search. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Piyush Kumar that of the total demand of ₹ 3,93,44,201 raised by the DRI in the SCN against all the petitioners/applicants, they offered to pay customs duty of ₹ 2,64,80,766/- together with interest. Further as a precondition to the applications being considered by the CCESC, the aforementioned admitted amount together with interest already stood paid by the applicants. 6. It is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and insurance charges having to be disclosed for the purposes of determining the valuation for the purposes of levying customs duty. In those cases too, the Revenue had disputed the stand of the applicants therein and vice versa. If indeed the CCESC could in those cases render a final decision upon contest, there was no reason for it to avoid that exercise in the present case. 9. As far as the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharampal Satyapal (supra) is concerned, it appears that by an order dated 31st August, 2016 in civil appeal No. 8553 of 2016 (Dharampal Satyapal v. Union of India), the Supreme Court of India set aside the said decision subject to conditions. In that case against a duty demand of ₹ 245,67,44,509/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
