TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the subject goods as alleged in the SCN, which has a bearing on imposition of penalty, differential Customs duty payable, amount stands paid by the applicant and confirmed by the Revenue, Since the duty was paid before the goods were cleared, interest is not applicable, immunities are granted under sub-section (1) of Section 127H of the Act. Attention of the applicants are also invited to the provisions of sub Section (2) and (3) of Section 127H ibid, order of settlement shall be void in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 127C of the Act - 134/CUS/KNA/2010-SC(MB) - 42/2011/CUS/KNA, - Dated:- 31-3-2011 - S/Shri H.O. Tewari, M. Dwivedi and N. Sasidharan, JJ. Shri Brijesh Pathak, Advocate, for the Assesee. S/Shri Arun Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in home consumption Bills of Entry No. 832988 and 833194 both dated 31-12-2009. 2.2 The matter was investigated and it revealed that the applicant has declared the contents of Chromium @ 10.5% by weight in the import product in the above said Bills of Entry as against 10 to 11% mentioned in the relevant MTCs. 2.3 As the applicant had failed to submit independent examination report from Chartered Engineer, it was directed to get these impugned goods inspected by an independent Chartered Engineer (CE). Accordingly, M/s. Intertek Testing Services India Pvt. Ltd., a Chartered Engineer firm was entrusted the job of examining the above goods on 19-5-2010, the said firm submitted a Certificate having Ref. No. SSA-NS/CIU-HONEST/456/2010-11 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntee of 35% of the assessable value and bond of equal value to the assessable value. 2.6 Shri Hitesh Vaghela, Director and Authorised Signatory of the applicant s firm, has deposed in his statement dated 19-3-2010 that the goods are misdeclared and he has committed an act of forgery by submitting a forged clarification certificate to justify the above misdeclaration and thereby evaded the legitimate customs duty. 3. Proceedings were initiated by the CIU, by issuance of the SCN dated 3-12-2010 as referred above, to the applicant M/s. Honest Enterprise Ltd. and Shri Hitesh Vaghela; asking them to show cause to the Adjudicating Authority as to why :- (i) The imported goods covered vide Bills of Entry Nos. 832988 and 833194 both date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant under Section 112(a) and/or 114AA of the Act, for rendering the goods liable to confiscation as mentioned above; (v) Penalty should not be imposed on Shri Hitesh Vaghela under Section 112(a) and/or 114AA of the Act, for their act of omission and commission which renders the impugned goods liable to confiscation as mentioned above. 4. In their application filed before the Hon ble Settlement Commission, the applicant have disclosed and accepted full differential duty liability of Rs. 4,94,214/- as proposed to be demanded in the impugned SCN from the applicant. The applicants have deposited full differential duty liability at the time of investigation on 2-3-2010. It is indicated that the SCN is pending adjudication. 5. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and payment of interest the ld. Advocate submitted that interest is not applicable as the duty amount as demanded have been paid at the time of clearance of the goods. 9.2 The ld. Advocate pleaded that the issue involved in the present case is concerning classification and not of valuation. The ld. Advocate further submitted that the Revenue had not contested the value. Relying on case law 1998 (27) RLT 556 (S.C.) = 1998 (101) E.L.T. 549 (S.C.) in the case of Northern Plastic Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise in the Supreme Court of India, the ld. Advocate argued that for classification dispute no penalty can be imposed. 9.3 The ld. Advocate further submitted that the applicant extended full co-operation during investigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds of the case and the submissions made by the applicants and the Revenue during the hearing. The Bench observes that the applicants have admitted the charge of undervaluation as alleged in the SCN. The applicants have admitted additional duty liability of Rs. 4,94,214/- and have paid the same in true spirit of settlement. They have prayed for immunity from fine, penalty and prosecution. Revenue have no objection to the settlement of the case and have confirmed correctness of payment of duty due but have pleaded for imposition of penalty and also pointed out that they had incurred heavy expenses on account of demurrage and retention charges. The Bench finds that the applicants have co-operated in the settlement proceedings and made full an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
