9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri S. Balakumar, Learned Assistant Commissioner for the appellant-Revenue and Shri N. Viswanathan, Learned Advocate for the respondent. 3. Brief facts, as could be gathered from the impugned order and which are undisputed, inter alia, are that the respondent viz. M/s. Moksha Business Machines filed Bills-of-Entry Nos. 2398579 dated 13.03.2019, 2361691 dated 11.03.2019 and 2934445 dated 22.04.2019 for clearance of used Digital Multifunctional Printers / Devices (MFDs) of various makes and models with standard accessories and attachments and classifying the goods under CTH 84433100; that the Revenue having noticed that the goods were second hand in nature, adhering to the RMS/CCR instructions mentioned in the EDI system and as per the preva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2398579 dated 13.03.2019, the declared value of Rs.18,13,637/- (CIF) (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Seven only) in respect of the goods imported by M/s. M/s. Moksha Business Machines, Hyderabad vide Bill-of-Entry No. 2361691 dated 11.03.2019 and the declared value of Rs.14,99,660/- (CIF) (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty only) in respect of the goods imported by M/s. Moksha Business Machines, Hyderabad vide Bill-of-Entry No. 2934445 dated 22.04.2019 were rejected in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and re-determined the value of the goods as Rs.45,92,608/- (CIF) (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Bills-of-Entry Nos. 2398579 dated 13.03.2019, 2361691 dated 11.03.2019 and 2934445 dated 22.04.2019 respectively under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the importer for having rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) ibid. (v) Imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in respect of Bills-of-Entry Nos. 2398579 dated 13.03.2019, 2361691 dated 11.03.2019 and 2934445 dated 22.04.2019 respectively under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the importer for the non-compliance of the procedures set out under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Aggrieved by the above ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as thus exhibited an inconsistent stand and has not brought on record as to why the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case is not being followed. 8. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Delhi Photocopiers (supra) and the order of this Bench in the case of M/s. S.P. Associates (supra) as also the fact that the First Appellate Authority has not brought on record any peculiar / distinguishing facts which were not available in respect of other assessees-appellants who are in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, I am of the view that the impugned order as to remand is not sustainable as the same suffers from inconsistency. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals are liable to be dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
