TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandra, Managing Director under Sec. 112 (a) of the Customs Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants made an import of 276 kg. of plastic extruded fabricated pieces/parts for electronic typewriters and filed a bill of entry dated 24-4-89. The appellants also submitted an invoice showing invoice value of the goods as 702.10 DM and had paid customs duty accordingly. Officers of the Customs Department visited the office premises and factory premises of the appellant company and seized certain documents relating to the above mentioned import. From verification of the documents, it was revealed that the original invoice value of the goods, in question was DM 3646.60 and the appellants reduced this price to 702.10 DM. It was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, submits that penalty on the M.D. is un-called for in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sham Sunder v. State of Haryana reported in (1990) (67) Company Cases 169 (S.C.). He, therefore, prays that the appeals be allowed. 4. Ld. D.R., appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the appellants are not disputing the price of the imported goods as 3646.60 DM. He submits that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the M.D., Shri Tarun Chandra gave instructions to the supplier to show less price in the invoice. He submits that the slip recovered from the appellant s premises shows that Tarun Chandra, M.D. gave the following instructions to the supplier : Please type this on your invoice FOR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r v. State of Haryana (supra). The Hon ble Supreme Court in, this case held that the partners of the firm not to be made liable to pay duty in absence of proof that they were incharge of business at the relevant time. In the present case, there is evidence on record to show that Shri Tarun Chandra, M.D. gave instructions to the supplier of the goods to show the less price in the invoice. Therefore, it is only on the behest of Shri Tarun Chandra, M.D. of the appellant firm the invoices were got fabricated to show less value of the goods. Therefore, the facts of the case law, relied upon by the appellants, are not parallel to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court are not applicable o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
