9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case the appellants sold the prime quality goods mis-declaring the same as Rejects to the related company UIL and availed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.2/95-CE. There are finding of facts recorded by all the authorities below that the appellants mis-declared the goods and sold prime quality goods as rejects and availed the benefit of concessional rate of duty illegally and fraudulently and by misdeclaration the authorities were justified in invoking the extended period of limitation. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the appellants that the authorities were not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation has no substance. It is required to be noted that it was the appellants w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in rejecting the appeals preferred by the appellants - appeal dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For the Appellant : Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. N. Venkatraman, A.S.G. (Not Present) Mr. V.C. Bharathi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sudhershan K, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma II, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vishakha, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. A. N. Arora, AOR ORDER 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order(s) dated 24-03-2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any) alleging that - (i) UTL had sold its entire goods (rejects) in DTA to UIL only during the said period; (ii) UTL UIL are related person as per Rule 2(2)(iv) of Customs Valuation Rules 1988; (iii) Such relationship had influenced price of fabrics (rejects) and, therefore, was not acceptable in terms of Rule 4(3) of CVR 1988 and, proposed to be rejected under Rule 10 of CVR 1988 and the value of such rejects be determined in terms of Rule 7 of CVR 1988; (iv) The fabrics sold by UTL and UIL as rejects were nothing but prime and flawless fabrics and, therefore, benefit of Notification No.2/95-CE would not be available and, duties of excise are liable to be paid under proviso to Section 3 of the CEA 1944. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present appeals at the instance of Uniworth Textiles Limited and Uniworth International Limited. At this stage, it is required to be noted that so far as Uniworth Textiles Limited is concerned, who sold/cleared the goods is held to be the related company. 2. We have heard Shri Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri V.C. Bharathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 3. Shri Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has made the following submissions - 1. That the goods in question were rightly declared as rejects and therefore, the benefit of Notification No.2/95-CE was rightly obtained; 2. that the extended period of limitation was wrongly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has vehemently submitted that the appellants cannot be permitted to take the advantage or disadvantage of their own illegalities. It is submitted that the appellants cannot be permitted to take the benefit of their own wrong and/or the violation by them. It is submitted that what is required to be considered is whether the appellants were allowed to import the goods or not. It is submitted that once the permission/approval was granted to import the goods and subsequently it was found that the appellants, in fact, imported the goods by mis-declaration and availed the benefit of Notification No.2/95-CE illegally, thereafter, the appellants cannot be permitted to say that there was no approval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the appellants that the authorities were not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation has no substance. 5.2 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the appellants that in any case the appellants would be liable to pay the excise duty under Section 3(1) and not under proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act is concerned and the submission on behalf of the appellants that there was no approval by the authority to import the prime quality good/goods and therefore proviso to Section 3(1) shall not be applicable and the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court referred to hereinabove is concerned, it is required to be noted that it was the appellants who go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
