9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot have to be proved but the crucial question of such admittance having been made in the present dispute is not apparent. It is quite possible that acceptance, as noted in bill of entry, may be construed as sufficing agreement with the revision in value but it appears to us that this conclusion therein, as well as in Sumridhi Aluminium (P) Ltd [ 2023 (9) TMI 1402 - CESTAT DELHI ], in re Namo Alloys Pvt Ltd [ 2023 (12) TMI 15 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH ] and in re Hanuman Prasad Sons [ 2020 (12) TMI 1092 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ], had, as its basis, conformation of acceptance of assessment and, thereby, holding that right of appeal was not in concatenation with the disputation of revision even though the former has no support without the latter. It is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 and no. 5905924/03.02.2012 and, instead, dismissing their appeal thus 6. The above comments of the department are self-explanatory and I find that all the grounds made in appeal memorandum are countered suitably. I also find that the appellant had accepted the enhancement of value and also paid the additional duty as assessed without any protest. The department has also justified the said enhancement on the basis of contemporaneous imports of similar goods with declared value (not loaded value) and advisory of the DRI alert letters. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the final assessment made by the department against the above mentioned Bills of Entry. Therefore, the judgements cited are not relevant for the issue. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962. Prima facie, there is no scope for implied acceptance and the thrust of submission on the part of Learned Authorized Representative, with reference to decisions of the Tribunal, is not acceptable. 3. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that no confirmation of revised assessment had been communicated by, or even sought from, them. He contended that it could not be said that the revision had been confirmed with disputation before appellate authorities sufficing for protest as set out by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd [(1997) 5 SCC 536]. On the mandate of section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962, he submitted that the decisions of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, ICD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that right of appeal was not in concatenation with the disputation of revision even though the former has no support without the latter. While, in re Namo Alloys Pvt Ltd in which the issue is much the same as the present one, the acceptance of assessment was held as incontrovertible owing to waiver of show cause notice for recovery, the decision in re Hanuman Prasad Sons was quite exhaustive in considering such cases. 6. We find that the circumstances of non-conformity with section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962 have not been examined by the first appellate authority. Nor did the authority have the benefit of the decision of the Tribunal in re Sumridhi Aluminium (P) Ltd, in Namo Alloys Pvt Ltd and in re Hanuman Prasad Sons setting out the lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
