9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er described the goods as "WP805A CDMA Integrated Fixed Wireless Terminal (IFWT) less SMPS with internal battery and battery charger". However, the CHA had described the goods as "Model No. WP805A Cellular Telephone WP805A CDMA Integrated Fixed Wireless Terminal (ITWT) less SMPS with Terminal Battery". The allegation against the appellants is that they have incorporated words 'Cellular Telephone' which was not appearing in the Commercial Invoice. Therefore, the appellants have been put under suspension vide Order dated 6-9-2005 on the allegation that there is a deliberate mis-declaration of description in the import documents by the CHA as a result of which goods were wrongly assessed duty as Cellular Phones resulting in short levy of Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing rulings :- (i) V.K. Singh v. CC, Hyderabad - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 108 (Tri. - Bang.) (ii) Total Shipping India (P) Ltd. v. CC - Final Order No. 1474/2005 dated 29-8-2005 (iii) Mohammed Riaz Uddin Ahmed v. CC - Final Order No. 846/2005 dated 20-5-2005 (iv) GCL Shipping Agencies (P) Ltd. v. CC - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 98 (Tri.- Bang.) 2. The learned Counsel submits that all these judgments have been rendered in the light of several rulings of the High Court, Supreme Court and Larger Bench. He prays for setting aside the suspension order but does not contest the right of the Commissioner to proceed against the appellants in terms of the Regulations for charge-sheeting and holding an enquiry and proceeding in terms of law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the appellants have not committed the mis-conduct with a view to avail any monetary gain or to defraud the Revenue as contended by them. They were having technical evidence to support the plea that the imported item is a Cellular Phone. In any case, M/s. ITI Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking, had given instructions to the appellants to declare the item to be a Cellular Telephone in the light of the enormous evidences they were relying on. They have contested the department's plea that it is not a Cellular Phone and paid the duty under protest. The matter is subjudice with regard to the item being a Cellular Telephone or not. In view of the contest raised by M/s. ITI Ltd., the appellants cannot be said to have committed such a mis-conduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
