9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of Rs.75 lakhs stand imposed on Shri Rajiv Seth, Director of the Company and of Rs.75 lakhs on Shri Giriraj Rattan Bagri who is Director of the exporting firm located in Hong Kong. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that M/s. R V Solutions Pvt. Ltd. imported mobile phones and got the same cleared on payment of leviable duty. The present impugned order relates to 27 past consignments and one live consignment. Allegations and findings against the said applicant is as regards the mis-declaration and under valuation of the mobile phones. Appellant had declared the value ranging from 28, 30, 35 US $ per piece whereas the Revenue has enhanced the same to 55 US $ per piece by taking into consideration the imports of other importers. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs approx. As against the above, the appellant has already given the bank guarantee of 13.98 lakhs, which is sufficient to cover the disputed amount. Accordingly, he prays for dispensing with the pre-deposit of dues against the applicants. 5. Learned Jt. CDR appearing for the Revenue draws our attention to the finding of adjudicating authority wherein he has dealt with wrong declaration of the goods as regards their brand name as also the fraud played by the appellant by submitting that the contract / agreement entered into by M/s. Shenzhen Dhingshang Electronics with Hong Kong party (who was actually an Indian) reveals that Shenzhen Dhingshang Electronics was not a manufacturer of the mobile phone but was simplicitor trader and there we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to them. As such, we are of the view that differential SAD now being confirmed against the assessee, by way of impugned order, is also eligible to be refunded to them, thus making the entire situation revenue neutral. As regards the balance amount of duty, falling under the category of education cess and higher education cess, totally amounting to Rs. 16.32 lakhs, we find that the appellants bank guarantee of Rs.13.98 lakhs is sufficient to cover the said amount. We accordingly direct the appellant to keep the said bank guarantee alive during the pendency of the appeal subject to which balance amount of duty and penalties imposed upon all the applicants shall stand waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal. 7. All four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
