9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT] observing that a statement made by a witness or a party under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 or section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 is ex-facie admissible in evidence to sustain penalty. The proprietor of the firm having categorically accepted the test report and paid the entire duty amount is a clear admission on his part - there is no iota of doubt that the appellant had mis-declared the classification of the goods in question as " 100% Polyester Knitted Fabric" and classified the same under chapter heading 6005 9000, which actually covers "warp knit fabrics". The matter was listed on 7.01.2025, when the applicant had once again chosen not to appear. Considering that the appeal is of the year 2010, we heard the learned Authorized Representative and after perusing the record had reserved the order, granting two weeks time to file written submissions, if any. Conclusion - Since there is apparent mis-declaration in the description of the goods as well as the value thereof, the goods are liable to be confiscated under section 111(m) of the Act along with redemption fine. On the same reasoning and analogy duty is recoverable under the proviso to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide order in original dated 21.04.2010 confirmed the duty of Rs. 47,89,393/- and Rs. 15,59,363/- in respect of the two Bills of Entry and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,857000/- and penalty of Rs. 47,89,393/- only under Section 114A of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Tribunal and department also filed appeal against non-imposition of mandatory penalty of Rs. 15,59,363/- under Section 114A in respect of Bill of Entry No. 776711 dated 24.03.2009. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant despite repeated opportunities granted by this Tribunal. Hence, we have perused the appeal records and heard Shri Nagendra Yadav, the authorized representative for the Revenue. 4. The basic issue to be decided is whether "100% Polyester Knitted Fabric" imported by the appellant were mis-declared and mis-classified under CTH60059000, attracting Customs duty @ of 10% Adv. or the same merits classification as "Polyester Cut Pile Fabric" under CTI 60019200 attracting customs duty at the rate of 10% Adv. or 4Rs.100/- per KG, whichever is higher. 5. For considering the issue, it is necessary to quote the chapter heading 60 having six main headings, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OF B/E NO. 776711 DT. 24.03.2009 Sample reference No. Test report No. Declared description of fabrics Fabrics found on Testing 282 dated 01/04/09 51/TC/SE/LDE/08-09 dated 20.04.2009 100% Polyester Knitted Fabric 100% Polyester Cut Pile Fabric 7. In the proceedings before the adjudicating authority, the appellant had not produced any evidence in rebuttal and the case was decided on the basis of the evidence led by the department. We find that the test reports by TTC received in respect of the two bills of entry, in clear terms have reported that the experts after testing has found the fabric to be "100% Polyester Knitted Cut Pile Fabric". In this regard, the discussion and findings arrived at by the adjudicating authority, relevant are set out below: "As per test results of Textile Committee (TTC), New Delhi, the fabric is "100% Polyester Knitted Cut Pile Structure". Pile fabrics falls under chapter heading 6001. This chapter heading is further divided into different sub-headings. The test results also indicates that the imported fabrics is of a 'cut pile structure' which implies that the fabrics in question is neither long pile' fabrics nor, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mundri Versus Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. - 2000(120) ELT 280 (SC) observing that a statement made by a witness or a party under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 or section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 is ex-facie admissible in evidence to sustain penalty. The proprietor of the firm having categorically accepted the test report and paid the entire duty amount is a clear admission on his part. In view of the settled principle of law by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras versus Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. - 2004 (165) ELT136 (SC) "what is admitted need not be proved ", nothing further is required to be substantiated by the department. Thus, there is no iota of doubt that the appellant had mis-declared the classification of the goods in question as " 100% Polyester Knitted Fabric" and classified the same under chapter heading 6005 9000, which actually covers "warp knit fabrics". 10. We cannot ignore the conduct of the appellant to some how avoid the proceedings. The appellant had not submitted any reply to the show cause notice and when opportunities were granted by the adjudicating authority for personal hearing on 24.02.2010, 3.03.2010, 10.03.2010 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
