TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Hon ble Member (Judicial) And Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Jitin Singhal (Advocate) Ms.Stuti Saggi (Advocate) for the Appellant Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey (Supdt.)(A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar The above stated two appeals are having similar facts related to the same appellant. Therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that appellant on 15.12.2009 filed Bill of Entry with ICD Dadri describing the goods imported as aluminium scrap as ISRI TABLET . The quantity declared was 21.240 MTs and CIF value was USD 34,108.80. Along with the said Bill of Entry important documents such as ISRI, invoice, packi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Appeal No.208-209/2010 dated 23.7.2010. The ld.Commissioner(Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to ₹ 50,000/- and ₹ 1,35,000/- and penalty of ₹ 10,000/- and ₹ 5,000/- respectively in two appeals decided by him simultaneously. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal which is bearing No.C/2/2011. In the similar manner appellant filed Bill of Entry on 22.12.2009 with ICD Dadri with same description of goods and along with similar documents as stated above. In this case the quantity was 19.72 MT and declared assessable value was ₹ 31,946.40. The consignment also was subject to the same procedure. In the consignment Aluminium lithographic sheet found were once again classified by Revenue in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was enhanced on the basis of NIDB data and further relied on this Tribunal s decision in the case of Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE ST, Noida reported at 2017 (7) GSTL 82 (Tri.-All.) and submitted that the adjudicating authority has not followed the requirement of section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and therefore as held in the said case of Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt.Ltd. the value of the goods declared in the Bills of entry should be accepted. 4. Heard the ld.AR who supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and perusal of records we find that the submissions made by the ld.Counsel for appellant are reflected in the Order-in-Original to the extent that the description of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|