9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts on record M/s. Euro is engaged in the business of import and sale of vitrified tiles, and glazed tiles falling under sub heading 6905.10 and 6906.10 of the Central Excise Tariffs. The import of said tiles is mainly from China and Malaysia and such imports are being affected at various ports. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the imports made at Mundra Port. 3. Notification No. 13/2002-C.E. (N.T.) as amended by Notification No. 5/2005-C.E. (N.T.), dated 24-2-05 notified the goods for the purposes of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, the tiles manufactured and sold in India is liable to central excise duty, by virtue of Notification No. 13/2002-C.E. (N.T.) as amended read with Section 4A and read with Standards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed to duty of CVD on the basis of MRP. Learned advocate, Shri Sridharan, appearing for the appellant has admitted the above position but submits that the entire confusion has arisen on account of a Notification No. 72/05-Cus. dated 22-7-05 giving effect to Bangkok agreement laying down payment of duty on the basis of invoice value. Elaborating on his arguments, he submits that the said tiles are being imported by them at various ports. The import was made in June 2005 at Mundra Port and MRP was declared and CVD was paid on the basis of the same. He also submits that they had been clearing their goods at Kandla through their clearing agent M/s. Krishna Agency, who had been declaring the MRP in respect of imports made prior to July 2005. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of limitation but the same was due to a bona fide belief entertained in view of the issuance of Notification No. 72/2005-Cus. The said fact of entertaining a bona fide belief has emerged in the statements of various persons recorded during the course of investigations. He draws our attention to the statement of the representative of Krishna Clearing Agency as also to the statements of Shri Nitesh Shah as also to the statements made by the Ashapura Shipping Agency. In fact, submits the learned advocate that it seems that the Revenue was also entertaining the same view in as much as they assessed the bill of entry on the basis of declaration of value by them and never insisted on declaration of MRP. In such a situation, invocation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee, in which case the customs Authorities could have adopted the MRP as 2.5 times value of the goods the bill of entry was assessed by the Customs Authorities without adopting the MRP. As such it seems it is a case of mutual mistake on the part of the assessee also on the part of the custom officer, assessing the bill of entry. The appellants were never called upon to declare the MRP and to pay the duty accordingly, at the time of assessment of the bill of entry. In the bill of entry, the appellants have disclosed the entire fact including the correct description of the imported goods, the correct heading under which they fall and the correct valuation of the same. Even if they have not disclosed that the said goods should have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
