9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the present case, no efforts on the part of the Revenue to first reject the transaction value and then proceed to enhance the value by referring to any contemporaneous imports. There is virtually no evidence for establishing the value of the goods on the lower side so as to enhance their value - there is no justification for enhancement, which has led the revenue to impose penalties upon the appellants - penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/131,132,133,144/2012-CU[DB], C/56829/2013-CU[DB] - Final Order No. 71351-71355/2018 - Dated:- 4-7-2018 - Hon ble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Dr. Prabhat Kumar (Adv) Shri S.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandra, to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 20 lakhs. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed penalties on M/s Bhawani Enterprises, Shri Naresh Chandra, M/s SunBeam Industries, who were initially held to be the owner of the goods as also Shri Deepak Gupta, Proprietor of M/s SunBeam Industries. Penalty was also imposed on Shri Praveen Chandra Agarwal, CHA G Card holder along with the imposition of penalty on Shri Ramesh Chandra CHA. 4. Arguing on the appeal learned Advocate submits that the value of the goods was enhanced so much that the importer could not redeem the same during the pendency of proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority or before the Tribunal. The goods are perishable in nature and get spoiled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of clearance of the goods as they have given up their right to pay the duty on the higher value and to clear the goods on payment of redemption fine. As such, the challenge in the present appeals is only to imposition of penalties, which stand imposed upon the appellants on the allegations and findings of undervaluation of the imported goods. 6 (ii) As regards undervaluation, we have examined the chart appearing in the impugned order of Commissioner and find that whereas the description of the goods in the appellants invoice show different grades, the goods described in the so called contemporaneous bills of entry referred to different grade numbers. Admittedly, grades are given to indicate the quality of a particular produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Commr. of Cus. C. EX., Hyderabad-II, 2008 (222) E.L.T. 260 (Tri. Bang.) Victory Press (P) LTD. V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin, 2006 (205) E.L.T. 1125 (Tri. Bang.) H.T. Company V/s Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad 2007 (208) E.L.T. 507 (Tri. Bang.) 7. In view of the forgoing discussion we agree with the learned advocate that there is virtually no evidence for establishing the value of the goods on the lower side so as to enhance their value. As such we find no justification for enhancement, which has led the revenue to impose penalties upon the appellants. Consequentially, the penalties imposed upon all the appellants are required to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
