9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd have also not questioned the proper officers, who allowed the clearance of Bill of Entry after the initial re-assessment. Department has not brought forth any omission or commission on the part of the Chartered Engineer or the proper officer so as to necessitate the revision of the assessment order passed in respect of the impugned goods. The assessment orders, which have attained finality, have also not been challenged; the same were neither stayed nor set aside by a competent higher forum or authority. Thus, we find that the Department is not within their right to subject same machines to another examination and assessment. We find that Department has seriously erred in re-determining the value of the impugned goods; the value of which is already enhanced at the time of import. We find that CVR 2007 does not give any scope for such re-assessment particularly when there was no challenge to the assessment made at the time of import by way of filing any appeal. Moreover, we find that whatever is construed as evidence in the impugned case pertains to import of some other machine albeit by the same importer. We find that evidence in one case cannot be a basis for confirmation of of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parate proceedings are going on. 2.1. Meanwhile officers of SIIB also searched the office premises of M/s WOPL on 16.11.2007 and detained 22 old and used printing machines, Imported by the appellants; out of the said 22 machines, 13 old and used printing machines, cleared under 07 bills of entry ( Nos 000164/19.01.2006, 102081/11.09.06, 103074/17.11.2006, 100825/30.05.06, 000355/08.02.2006, 104175/15.02.07 102849/31.10.2006,were subsequently seized on 31.12.07 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962; they were provisionally released on execution of Bond for Rs.2,85,00,000/- and Bank Guarantee for Rs.6,40,000/-. 2.2. On completion of investigation, a show cause notice, dated 19.1.2011, was issued proposing to reject the declared value of these 13 machines under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (CVR, 1998) ; proposing to redetermine the same at Rs.78,01,549, under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 8 of the CVR, 1998; demand differential customs duty of Rs 22,81,831 along with interest and proposing to impose Penalty on the appellant and their directors, under Section 112(a) and/or Section 114A of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier judgment in case of Eicher Tractors 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC) held that the depreciation method was not applicable when the transaction value was available. CESTAT has held similarly in Veekay Surgicals (P) Ltd Vs CC, Faridabad 2009(245) ELT 501(Tri-Del) Maharashtra Services VS CC, Trichy 2009 (245) ELT 830 (Tri. - Chennai) CC, New Delhi Vs Swan Press, 2005 (184) ELT 93 (TRIDEL). Peerles Pack Ltd., reported in 2003 (157) ELT177 (Tri.) 6. Learned Counsel submits that CESTAT accepted declared value of import of second-hand machinery in the following cases-- Omax International vs. CC, Chennai - 2007 (216) ELT 248 Balaji Office Equipment vs. CC, Chennai-2007 (216) ELT 611 2006 (209) ELT A115; 2007 (208) ELT 507; 2006 (198) ELT 240 Victory Press Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Cochin- 2006 (205)1125 Madhu Industries Ltd Vs CC, Ahmedabad 2008 (232) ELT 575 (Tri) 7. Learned Counsel submits also that the declared value was enhanced at the time of import in respect of all the impugned machines and the same were released after examination and assessment; declared values were either enhanced on the basis of local Chartered Engineer's Certificate or on own accord of the proper officer; re-enhancement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 133) ELT 570 (TRI.) 11. Learned Counsel submits that reliance on the statement dated 22- 11-2007 of Shri Jaspal Singh is misplaced and the statement of Jaspal Singh Batra dated 10.1.2008 pertains to B/E No.642833 dated 1.11.2007, which was settled by order of Settlement; moreover, statement alone cannot be relied upon for enhancement of declared value. -Reliance is placed on the following cases. Orient Enterprises, New Delhi Vs CC, Cochin 1986 (23) E.LT. 507 (Trib) affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court 1997 (92) ELT A69 (SC) Paper Suppliers Vs CC, Kandla 2002 (147) ELT 101 (Tri. - Mumbai) Metplast India Vs CC, Nhava Sheva 2004 (173) ELT 59 (Tri. - Mumbai) Galaxy Fun world Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai 2007 (220) ELT 332 (Tri. Mumbai) Munna Gift Centre Vs CC, Chennai2004 (178) ELT 310 (Tri. - Bang.) 12. Learned Counsel submits that no cash was recovered; remittances were only through banking channels; there was no evidence of extra remittances; no allegation of under invoicing can be alleged against the noticee merely on the basis of certain documents which are not authentic as held in Taito Watch Manufacturing Industries Vs CC., Jaipur 2004(173) ELT 17 (Tri. - Del.); transaction val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant and the statement of the Directors was misconstrued. We find that Department relies upon evidence gathered during the investigation in respect of some other machine, which the appellants have settled as per the directions of the Settlement Commission. We find that once the goods have been cleared from the Port of import after examination and enhancement of the value. We are of the considered opinion that the Department cannot re-assess the impugned goods for the second time. We find that the investigating officers did not question the Chartered Engineer, who issued the certificate on import and have also not questioned the proper officers, who allowed the clearance of Bill of Entry after the initial re-assessment. Department has not brought forth any omission or commission on the part of the Chartered Engineer or the proper officer so as to necessitate the revision of the assessment order passed in respect of the impugned goods. The assessment orders, which have attained finality, have also not been challenged; the same were neither stayed nor set aside by a competent higher forum or authority. Under these circumstances, we find that the Department is not within their rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
