9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. None, for the Opponents. [Order per : D.A. Mehta, J. (Oral)]. - This appeal has been preferred challenging order dated 26.6.2006 made by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal) dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein. The appellant has proposed the following questions stated to be substantial questions of law. (1) Whether the adjudicating authorities could have ignored evidence of comparative invoicing as available under section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 where they allowed similar exports at same or higher price? (2) Whether the customs and adjudicating authorities could have alleged over invoicing in absence of any evidence on record? ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fabric from one M/s Ankita Textile at Rs.125/- per mtr under invoice No.53 dated 14.2.2001. Upon inquiry, the adjudicating authority found that the cost of fabric shown by M/s Ankita Textile and the cost of manufacturing shown by M/s Krishna Impex were on a higher side than the actual cost. For this purpose, statements of various persons recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) were relied upon. On 25.5.2001, the Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods valued at Rs.10,55,875/- (FOB) under section 113(d) and section 113(i) of the Act. A redemption fine of Rs.2 lacs was imposed along with penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant and penalties of varying amounts on other persons. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Promotion Council having fixed the cut off price for exports has been dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph No.9 of its order and the learned advocate for the appellant could not dispute the correctness of the findings recorded therein. 4. At the time of hearing, the learned advocate for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has ignored various pieces of documentary evidence produced by the appellant before the Commissioner and the Tribunal ought to have called for the said evidence by directing the representative of the department appearing before the Tribunal to produce the original file of adjudication before the Commissioner. 5. The aforesaid contention deserves to be stated only to be rejected. It is not the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
