9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under replenishment scheme - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, from perusal of the show cause notice dated 31.08.2018, it is evident that the same was issued on the ground that the respondent has mis-declared the description and value addition so as to wrongly claim the benefit under the replenishment scheme. From the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Tribunal, it is evident that the issue with regard to mis-declaration as well as applicability of Notification No. 57/2000-Customs, dated 08.05.2000, and the Circular No. 27/206-Customs, dated 10.06.2016, issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs as well as the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 was also involved. Therefore, the appeals before this Court are maintainable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Trichnopoly Ravi Kanth Shivani, learned counsel for the respondent in CEA.Nos.29 and 32 of 2024. 2. These appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ), emanate from the common order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal ). As the proposed substantial questions of law are similar and the appeals arise out of the common order, the same were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, the facts from C.E.A.No.23 of 2024 are being referred to. 3. The respondent is engaged in the business of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the documents recovered during search operations, show cause notice dated 31.08.2018 was issued, inter alia, on the grounds mentioned therein to the respondent proposing demand of duty on the quantum of gold given under replenishment scheme received from the aforesaid LLP and the penalty was proposed on both the exporters, namely Bullionline LLP as well as its partner. The Additional Director General (Adjudication) by order dated 26.08.2020 confirmed the demand against the respondent that penalty was imposed on LLP and its partners. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed Appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal by a common order dated 08.02.2024, inter alia, held that no case of violation of conditions of Notification No. 57/2000-Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, the value addition ought to have been done at 3.5% instead of 2%. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the importer had violated the provisions of the Notification No. 57/2000-Customs, dated 08.05.2000, and the Circular No. 27/206-Customs, dated 10.06.2016, issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs read with Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 as well as the Handbook of Procedures. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that there was a mis-declaration on account of process of manufacture and value addition and therefore the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Section 113 (i) of the Act are attracted. Our attention has also been invited to the circular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in CEA.No.23 of 2024 submitted that the dispute in these appeals does not pertain to valuation and the appeals do not pertain to determination of valuation as envisaged under Section 14(2) of the Act. Therefore, these appeals are maintainable. It is, however, urged that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals. 12. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. 13. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the preliminary objection urged on behalf of the respondent with regard to maintainability of the appeals. 14. The relevant extract of Section 130 and Section 130-E of the Act are extracted below for the facility of reference: 130. Appeal to High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar No. 27/206-Customs, dated 10.06.2016, issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs as well as the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 was also involved. Therefore, we hold that the appeals before this Court are maintainable. 16. Now we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. The issue in the instant appeals pertains to demand of duty on quantum of gold given under replenishment scheme received from the LLP. It is not the case of the appellant that matching quantum of gold has not been exported as required under Notification No. 57/2000-Customs. The Tribunal, on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record, has recorded the following findings: i) In the instant case, gold has been supplied by Diamond India Limited by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
