Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 668 - AT - Central ExciseEPCG scheme - Confiscation - Whether natural justice was denied to the appellants by the adjudicating authority - In the present case, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants could not reply to the show-cause notice as they were not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses - Once the case is before the adjudicating authority, the noticee is at liberty to adduce evidence to support his own defence and/or to disprove the department’s allegations - it can be held with no iota of doubt that the adjudicating authority duly observed the principles of natural justice whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act - The certificate of the Chartered Engineer, which was produced by the importer along with their Bills of Entry, was itself dubbed as invalid by the Chartered Engineer himself vide statement dated 26-3-1997 of Shri S.M. Bhola - The relevant EXIM Policy (1992-97) required the minimum residual life of second-hand machines to be ten years for zero duty imports - Decided against the assessee whether the machines under import were liable to be confiscated in terms of Section 111(m) of the Act - for the applicability of Section 111(m), there can be no differentiation between the goods in respect of which Bills of Entry were filed and other goods under transhipment for which no Bills of Entry were filed - It is not in dispute that the goods under import were not of the same specifications as those of the goods mentioned in the purchase order - Decided against the assessee whether some of the items imported by KSL along with the machines without mentioning the same in the import documents are liable to confiscation under clause (l) of Section 111 of the Act - The redemption fines determined by the Commissioner in lieu of confiscation of the goods are apparently proportionate to the lower CIF values estimated in the relevant punchnamas and not to the declared higher CIF values - Held that: value could not have been revised by the Commissioner is agreed to by me since there was no proposal to revise the value in the show-cause notice by due rejection of transaction value and proposal to reduce it under a specific rule with supporting evidence - In the absence of specific proposal and conclusions, I agree that value as declared has to be accepted and not because there is no evidence - Appeal is dismissed
|