9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is denial of natural justice to them. Matter remanded back to adjudicating authority for reconsideration of matter after following the principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. C/285/2012 - A/85790/2019 - Dated:- 21-1-2019 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) None for the Appellant Ms. Trupti Chavan, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA This appeal is directed against the order in original No 78/2011/CC(I) JNCH dated 25.01.2012 of Commissioner Customs (Import) JNCH Nhava Sheva. By the said order Commissioner held as follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Holding the goods misdeclared, the transaction value as declared by the Appellants was rejected under Rule 12 of Custom Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods), 2007. The valuation of the imported goods was proposed on the basis of value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods i.e. Base Oil SN-500. In terms of Rule 4 of Custom Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods), 2007, the value was redetermined at US$ 1280 PMT. Appellants vide their letter dated 02.01.2012 accepted the proposed value of US$ 1280 PMT. 2.5 In view of the above misdeclaration in terms of description, quantity and value with the intention to evade payment of duty, the goods were rendered liable for confiscation under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of transaction value by application of Rule 12, in the present case is not justified. vi. It is settled law that onus to prove that declared price did not reflect the transaction value is on department and department has failed to discharge the said burden. (Prodelin India Pvt Ltd [20-06 (202) ELT 3 (SC)] vii. Variation in the quantity declared was due to mistake at the port of loading and same is to the extent of 4% only and was not intentional. 4.1 None appeared on the behalf of Appellant at time of hearing despite notice. Ms Trupti Chavan Assistant Commissioner, Authorized Representative was heard on the behalf of revenue. 4.2 Learned Authorized Representative arguing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order in para 7(ii) and (iii) as follows: (ii) M/s Managli Petrochem Ltd during the Personal Hearing dt 02.01.2012 accepted the valuation as per contemporaneous import of Base Oil SN-500. (iii) I find that the noticee did not dispute the finding of the IOCL Vashi to the effect that the goods are Base Oil SN- 500. In view of the above I hold that the goods are Base Oil SN-500. 5.4 In our view matter needs to be reconsidered by the Commissioner on the basis of all the facts and documents on record. 5.5 Further we find that there is no evidence available on record to show that documents that revenue intended to rely against the appellants were ever given to them. Non supply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
