GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 883 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2015 (11) TMI 883 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Mis-declaration of goods - Enhancement in value of goods - Demand of differential duty - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that:- appellant has mis-declared the quantity and certain goods was not declared by the appellant nor in the invoice. We also find that the appellants were fully aware of the quantity and also description and the proposed value which they have initially clearly admitted in their statement before the inves .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n declared. The lower appellate authority has also rightly examined their plea and gave clear finding on the appellant s contention for variation in quantities. Accordingly, rejection of transaction value, demand of differential duty and the confiscation are liable to be upheld. - However, redemption fine is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - C/10/2007 - Final Order No. 41366 / 2015 - Dated:- 1-10-2015 - Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member And Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The Bill of Entry No. 987225 dated 25.3.2006 was initially assessed on second appraisement based on the appellants declaration and the value was enhanced to ₹ 6.57 lakhs. Based on the intelligence, the SIIB of Customs examined the goods and found variations in the quantities and description. The appellants accepted the enhancement of value and the mis-declaration and waived both show cause notice and personal hearing. The adjudicating authority in his order dated 18.7.2006 enhanced the val .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds of appeal and submits that they have imported sports goods of various items as per the invoice at page 27 of the paper book. He submits that initially the value was enhanced and again it was further enhanced based on the NIIB data and internet which is not acceptable. He drew attention to paragraphs 6.1 to 6.4 of the impugned order and submits that the appellate authority has not considered th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal have consistently held that mere NIIB data and valuation circular cannot be the criteria for enhancement of value under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. He also submits that the appellants mere waiving of the show cause notice and personal hearing does not imply that they have admitted the mis-declaration of goods etc. The burden is on the department to prove that transaction value is wrong or mis-declared. In support if his contention, he relied on Khus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he quantity and also the description. They also waived the show cause notice and personal hearing vide their letter dated 27.3.2006. All their arguments before the lower appellate authority and this Tribunal are only afterthought which has no basis. He submits that the entire case laws relied on by the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no mis-declaration in the above cited cases. He submits that the adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the transacti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd the value was enhanced. Subsequently, based on the intelligence, the goods were examined by the SIIB of Customs in the presence of importer. We find as per Annexure I to the adjudication order, appellant hasmis-declared the quantity and certain goods was not declared by the appellant nor in the invoice. We also find that the appellants were fully aware of the quantity and also description and the proposed value which they have initially clearly admitted in their statement before the investiga .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 IGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

7-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version