9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue involved in these cases is arising out of the same impugned order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are during the period August 2006 to July 2007 M/s. Medical Engineers (I) Ltd. main appellant imported goods and declared them as CNG kit and components falling under Customs Tariff 8409 99 90 and claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 21/2002 paying Customs duty @ 5% as indicated at Sl. 229, having fulfilled the condition No.39 of the said Notification and also discharged C.V.D on the transaction value of the imported goods. An investigation was carried out on the ground that there was evasion of customs duty by paying C.V.D on CNG kits and components on the transaction value are not on the retail sale pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorrect as they have filed all the documents and also discharged the CVD on the transaction value. Since the assessment is in respect of Customs Act, ignorance as is attributable to the appellant is also applicable on the part of the assessing officer. He would also relied upon the judgement of Honble Apex Court in the case of CC v. N.M.K. Jewellers - 2008 (225) ELT 3 (S.C.). He would also relied upon the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of CEV Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Jong Sung Kim v. CCE 2014-TIOL-796-CESTAT-DEL as also Jyanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (215) ELT 327 SC. It is his submission that the impugned order be set aside. 4. Learned D.R. on the other hand, would submit that the imported items are specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the authorities for demanding the differential CVD along with interest and also for imposition of penalties to all appellants is hit by limitation or otherwise. 6.1 The facts are not much in dispute inasmuch, there is an import of the goods during the material period August 2006 to July 2007 and are eligible for benefit of concessional rate of Customs duty under Notification No.21/2002-Cus and are liable for CVD. It is also undisputed that the appellant has paid the CVD on the transaction value which was declared by them to the customs authorities. There is also no dispute as to the transaction value of the imported goods. 6.2 We find that the main appellant is claiming extended period invoked by the show-cause notice dated 16.3.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng non-compliance with Standards of Weights and Measures Act, it was also for the department to bring to the notice of the appellant that the goods were covered under the said Act and as per the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 they are liable to discharge of CVD on value of MRP/RSP. 6.5 Secondly, we find that there is no answer as when the benefit of Notification 21/2002-Cus for the imported consignments was extended based upon the certificate issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India how the assessing officer failed to note that the goods are covered under MRP/RSP. We fail to understand how the assessing officer was not aware that the goods imported are covered by Notification No. 49/2008. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
