9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. SB No. 08/06.02.2008, after provisional assessment and payment of duty of Rs. 8,25,000/- @ Rs. 50/- per MT and cess of Rs. 16,500/- @ Rs. 1/- per MT subject to Test Results of samples with a bank guarantee of Rs. 41,25,000/- for the differential duty under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.1 The Test Report No. CL 2020-EKKD, dated 11.02.2008 of the representative samples drawn during the examination of cargo in the presence of agent of the appellants at the time of export had shown the Fe content as 62.32% consequent to which the differential duty of Rs. 250/- per MT became payable in terms of Notification No. 62/2007-Cus, dt. 03.05.2007. The Revenue encashed the bank guarantee to recoup the differential duty of Rs. 41,25,000/- 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CC & CE, Visakhapatnam [2010 (249) ELT 387 (Tri. - Bang.)] Steer Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CC & CE, Visakhapatnam [2010 (250) ELT 308 (Tri. - Bang.)] Mineral Enterprises Ltd., Vs. CC, Mangalore [2010 (253) ELT (Tri. -Bang.)] Alpine International Vs. CC, Mangalore [2008 (224) ELT 331 (Tri. -Bang.)] It is his further submission that the certificate of quality issued by reputed, authorized laboratory indicates that the Fe content of the consignment was 60.16% and also E-mail from recipient end, indicates that the Fe content was 59.35%. It is his submission that once the Fe content less than 62% the assessment finalized by the Lower Authorities were wrong confirming the demand of customs duty at an amount of Rs. 300/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.2009 of CRCL showing 62.2% of Fe content is binding on the appellants. The export duty at the rate of Rs. 300/- per MT in terms of Notification No. 62/2007-Cus, dt. 03.05.2007 is prima facie applicable for iron ore exported under Shipping Bill No. 08/06.02.2008. Any supplementary evidence is considered only in the absence of prima facie evidence. Hence appellant's contention that the transaction value realized can be taken as supplementary evidence is not tenable." In our view, nothing survives in this case as re-test of Fe content, is indicating Fe content as more than 62%. The case laws on which reliance was placed by the appellant, may not be carry his case any further as in this case, on the Lower Authorities had accepted the retest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
