9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of anti-dumping duty - request for cross-examination rejected - extended period of limitation. HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the case of M/s PG Electroplast Ltd. [ 2019 (6) TMI 1229 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD ] has dealt with the appeal arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances and the same investigations made by the revenue. While dealing with the appellant s pleas, it was held that once the assessments finally done have not been challenged by way of filing an appeal there again, it was not open to the revenue to initiate the proceedings by invoking the longer period of limitation. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from whom M/s J.R International imported CPT by overvaluing to avoid imposition of anti-dumping duty. On the aforesaid basis, statement of Sri Gaganpreet Singh Malhotra was recorded on 22.2.2011 16.11.2012, wherein he deposed that actual price of 14 inches CPT was around US$ 16, whereas the same was imported at unit price of US 19, against which payments were made through LCs, which were for a period of 90-180 days. 3. Show Cause Notice was issued invoking extended period of limitation under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962,directing Appellants to show cause as to why (i) declared assessable value of ₹ 7,40,33,007/- ₹ 78,82,191/-should not be rejected in terms of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 r/w Rule 12 of Customs (Determinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/- respectively and imposing anti-dumping duty of ₹ 1,60,32,074/- ₹ 6,43,354/- respectively along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty. Penalty of ₹ 25,00,000/- ₹ 10,00,000/- was also imposed on Appellant and Director respectively u/s 114AA whereas penalty of ₹ 25,00,000/- was also imposed on Director u/s 112(a). 6. The Learned Advocate Shri Nishant Mishra appearing for the appellants has raised the following please:- 1. In absence of any challenge in appeal to the assessment of Bill of Entry, the said assessment became final and the same cannot be reopened. In the present case, assessments were made during the period 2.7.2009 to 8.3.2011 and the same were allowed to became final on account of non-fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessments finally done have not been challenged by way of filing an appeal there again, it was not open to the revenue to initiate the proceedings by invoking the longer period of limitation. For better appreciation, we reproduce para-7 of the said order:- 7. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made by both the sides. From the perusal of the impugned Order-In-Original, we note that Original Authority has denied cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon for issuance of said show cause notice dated 29 May, 2015. Further we note that at Para 7.3.18 the learned Original Authority has held that the most clinching part of the investigation is the admission made by Shri Vishal Gupta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
