9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice in this case as per Cannon India followed by a catena of judgments some of which were cited above. Thus, if the show cause notice is without authority, regardless of the merits of the case, the order cannot be sustained. Even if we examine the merits of the case the outcome is irrelevant whether it is found in favour of Revenue or in favour of the appellant. The impugned order still needs to be set aside. Following ratio of Canon India, it is found that the impugned order cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 70376 OF 2019 - Final Order No. 70067/2022 - Dated:- 11-2-2022 - MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Ashish K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, A show cause notice [ SCN ] dated 28.2.2012 was issued by the Additional Director of DRI proposing confiscation of the current consignment of the goods as well as the past consignments under section 111(m) on the ground of undervaluation, rejecting the declared value of the goods and re-determining the value at the rate of US$ 300 per CBM as per Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules (CVR) 2007 and its re-determination under Rule 5 of CVR, 2007 and recovering the differential duty amounting to ₹ 3,58,028/- along with interest and proposing to impose penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. Thus, the entire case in the show cause notice is built on the ground that the appellant had mis-declared the value of the imported plywoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court ] Madras High Court- Madurai bench 2. Quantum Coal Energy Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs [ 2021 (3) TMI 1034- Madras High Court ] Karnataka High Court 3. Givaudan India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs [ 2021(8) TMI 178- Karnataka High Court ] Punjab and Haryana High Court 4. Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs UOI [ Punjab Haryana High Court Order dated 19.4.2021 in Civil Writ Petiton No. 19871 of 2020 ] Tribunal 5. Principal Commissioner, Customs, ACC Import vs Dish TV India Limited, Rajeev Dalmia and Virender Kumar Tagra [ 2021 (10) TMI 771- CESTAT, New Delhi ] 6. Evershine Customs (C F) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs [ 2021(8) TMI 906- CESTAT, New Delhi] 5. We further not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal has been pressed on following question of law. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT order that Revenue has nowhere attacked the transaction value and has not produced any evidence to show that transaction value was wrong instead of misdeclaration of quantity/ Thickness as well as value of imported goods having been accepted by the Director of the Party in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified/ legal or not. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal and the order in original reveal that at one stage revenue sought enhancement of value of goods citing earlier transaction performed by the assessee at a higher value of 300 dollars per CBM. The present transaction was valued at 200 dollars per CBM. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
