9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpletion of investigation, proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the allegation that they had not declared MRP before the Customs and sold the goods at higher MRP and thereby evaded the customs duty of Rs.6,23,664/- in respect of the live consignment seized at the port under B/E dated 27.0 1.2015. During search operations in the business premises of the appellant on 02.02.2015, where 121890 pieces of imported body spray/perfumes and gift pack, etc worth Rs.37,97,010/- were found, which did not have MRP affixed on them. These goods were imported by paying duty on declared RSP. It was also noticed that certain invoices issued to some clients in Kerala depicted the transaction value much higher than the RSP declared by the importer at the time of import. The goods seized were later provisionally released on payment of differential duty, deposit of amount in lieu of bank guarantee and on furnishing bond of 100% value of the seized goods in respect of the live consignment. 3. Show cause notice dated 28.0 7.2015 was issued to the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the customs duty of Rs.6,23,664/- in respect of the goods covered by the Live consignment, duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, the quantification of such differential duty has been made in a summary manner based on certain illustrative evidences. We note that the invoices submitted by the appellants required detailed verification so that the differential duty in respect of goods which were sold with much higher MRP can be arrived at on such verification. Penal consequence of such differential duty should be commensurate to violation as found on such verification. For this limited purpose, we remand the matter to the original authority for re-quantification of duty. The appellants shall be given adequate opportunity to submit the documents and defence before a decision taken." 4. From the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the first two issues were decided on merits in favour of the appellant and the appeal has been allowed holding the said demands as unsustainable. The third issue was decided on merits holding that as the appellant has admitted that the goods were sold on much higher MRP after changing the MRP label and that the goods sold through retailers in Kerala, the MRP was more than double in certain cases, there was clear violation and therefore, the demand of differentia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared in the past during the period 2014-15 in respect of which a demand of differential duty of Rs.91,86,981/- has been made. The Hon'ble Tribunal has also held that such demand is not sustainable. There is no reason to disagree with this view as the goods found in the godown and seized by the department were definitely imported by the noticee and cleared in the past on the entire quantity of which duty has been demanded. Demanding duty on such goods being part of past imports would amount to demand twice over. Therefore I hold the duty of Rs. 14,22,622/- which has been demanded separately in respect of goods seized at the godowns is not sustainable as it is already covered under the amount of duty demanded for the entire past imports. 11. It is evident that the goods being subject matter of the SCN in question have been improperly imported as the value declared in the B/E's filed by the noticee do not correspond to their actual value with respect to their MRP. Therefore the goods covered under Bill of Entry no.8107125 dated 27.01.2015 valued at Rs.29,09,395/- as well as goods seized at the godown of the importer valued at Rs.37,96,885/- seized during subsequent search operation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was to the effect:- "For this limited purpose, we remand the matter to the Original Authority for re-quantification of duty. The appellant shall be given adequate opportunity to submit the documents and defence before a decision taken." 9. Before considering this last issue, we would like to examine whether sufficient opportunity has been granted to the appellant during the remand proceedings. From the impugned order, we find that the appellant vide letter dated 04.06.2018 was called upon to submit documents/invoices, evidencing sale of goods/retail sale invoices in their defence. A reminder was then sent on 22.06.2018 and the appellant by its reply dated 06.07.2018, enclosed the self attested copies of some invoices evidencing sale of goods imported by them. The appellant was then granted sufficient opportunity for personal hearing, which was fixed on 9.08.2018, but no one appeared and on the request for adjournment, the next date was fixed as 27.08.2018 but again nobody appeared nor any request for adjournment was received, yet another opportunity was granted. Personal hearing was given for 24.09.2018 but nobody appeared, and accordingly the case was taken up for adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
