9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dubai and got the goods manufactured from M/s. Fair Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. the samples of goods were tested by them and their buyers, between 7-9-1999 and 10-9-1999, they sought to export 4698 gross (676512 pieces) under 10 Shipping Bills which are the subject matter of the present proceedings. Sample of the goods were drawn by Customs Authorities and goods were provisionally allowed to be exported. The Department did not make the final assessments; the appellants filed a petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta which directed Revenue to adjudicate expeditiously. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 23-2-2000 alleging, inter alia, that the 4698 gross of steel welding electrodes covered under 10 Shipping Bills, on investigation by the offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs each on the Directors of M/s. Fair Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. was arrived. Hence the present appeal. 3.After hearing the material on record it is found :- (a) Full amount as per declared FOB values have been received and the appellant have submitted evidence to that effect before the ld. Commissioner, no rebuttal of this proposition was shown to us as records detailed of payment received. (b) The foreign buyers is not related to the appellants, price is negotiated price, no part of the amounts of the benefit have been alleged or flowing to the foreign buyers, there is no material obtained by the Department of contemporaneous price of similar goods. (c) & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003 (157) E.L.T. 662 (Tri.-Mumbai) by the appellants is well founded to set aside the confiscation orders arrived at in this case. No confiscation penalty could be arrived at on overvaluation for claiming higher DEPB relying on the decision of Suresh Jhunjhunwala v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs., Hyderabad, 2005 (183) E.L.T. 60 (Tri-Mumbai). 5.The jurisdiction of Customs Authority to sit over the decision in the , case of DEPB is not upheld in the case of Suresh Enterprises, 2005 (179) E.L.T. 466. We also rely on the decision in the case of Ramayan Impex v. Commissioner of Customs (exports) Nhava Sheva, 2005 (189) E.L.T. 446 (Tri.-Mumbai) to set aside the confiscation and the penalty arrived in this case as no prohibition on e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
