Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (11) TMI 946

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 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. It would be correct to say that the assessing officer of the Customs department should be aware of the duty liability of the goods imported and should have assessed the goods correctly by invoking the provisions of Notification 49/2008. It cannot be said that the appellant has suppressed any material fact from the Customs department, atleast in the case in hand. Demand in question in the case in hand and consequent penalty imposed is incorrect as provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the proviso thereof, may not be applicable on the facts as recorded by us her .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oms 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 price (RSP) as required under the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Entry No.108 of Notification No.49/2008-CE (NT) dated 24.12.2008. After recording various statements, show-cause notice dated 16.3.2011 was issued demanding differential C.V.D amounting to ₹ 73,16,285/- interest thereof and penalties on the main appellant as well as the employees of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder as unit packing for declaration of price under MRP. It is his submission that there is no dispute as to the fact that the goods imported by the appellant are covered under the provisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and CVD is payable. He would submit that it was incumbent on the main appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 is incorrect. We find that the arguments of the learned Counsel are having a strong force. On perusal of the bills of entry, we find that description of the goods is as is mentioned in the invoices, packing list. We also notice that the main appellant had filed the certificate given by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India indicating that the goods imported by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. It would be correct to say that the assessing officer of the Customs department should be aware of the duty liability of the goods imported and should have assessed the goods correctly by invoking the provisions of Notification 49/2008. It cannot be said that the appellant has suppressed any material fact from the Customs department, atleast in the case in hand. 6.6 We f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates