9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go through the statutory provisions and correctly assess the CVD payable. At that particular point of time, in respect of all the 39 Bills of Entry, the Customs officials have assessed the Bills of Entry by charging the CVD as per Section 4. There is nothing to suggest that the Appellant has mis-declared either the nomenclature of the goods or the Tariff heading of the goods which would have lead the Customs officials to interpret any erroneous way to charge the CVD under Section 4 instead of under Section 4A. The case law cited by the Learned AR deals with the issue as to how the Battery is required to be assessed at the time of imports. Neither both the sides nor this Bench has any other view. The Batteries are required to be classif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per Section 4 of the CEA, 1944, proceedings were initiated and after due process, demand of Rs.67,57,170/- was confirmed with interest and penalty. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that during the period under dispute, the imports were not under self-assessment. The Bills of Entry were to be assessed by the Customs Officials. He submits that in all these cases, the Appellant has correctly declared the CET of the imported goods. In case the Customs officials were of the view that the goods are required to be assessed under section 4A of CEA, 1944 for CVD purposes, they could have done so as, the Central Excise Tariff itself clarified that these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared the CET of the imported Batteries as 850710.00. Once he declares the CET and the same is not disputed by the Department, it is for the Customs Officials to go through the statutory provisions and correctly assess the CVD payable. At that particular point of time, in respect of all the 39 Bills of Entry, the Customs officials have assessed the Bills of Entry by charging the CVD as per Section 4. There is nothing to suggest that the Appellant has mis-declared either the nomenclature of the goods or the Tariff heading of the goods which would have lead the Customs officials to interpret any erroneous way to charge the CVD under Section 4 instead of under Section 4A. The case law cited by the Learned AR deals with the issue as to how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
