9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Trupti Chavan, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant had filed the Bill of Entry No. 4693153 dated 20.09.2011 for clearance of "Aluminium Scrap Tread" under CTH 76020010. The value declared for the subject goods was Rs. 27,20,834/- and duty leviable was assessed to be Rs. 4,09,033/-. The said B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 112 (a) ibid. Differential duty amount of Rs. 2,05,207/- was also demanded from the importer/appellant. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 31.01.2013 has upheld the assessment order and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e declaration made in the Bill of Entry. Thus, we are of the considered view that the appellant is exposed to the consequences provided under the statute for payment of differential duty, fine and penalty. Therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below are sustainable and cannot be interfered with at this juncture. 4. In view of above, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
