Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Medical Engineers (I) Ltd., Varun Khurana And Raj K. Motwani Versus CC (Import) , Nhavasheva

2015 (11) TMI 946 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Benefit of concessional rate of Customs duty under Notification No.21/2002-Cus - Benefit of CVD - whether the show-cause notice dated 16.3.2011 issued 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 - Held 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 Environme .....

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 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 herein above. It has to be hold that the there was no suppression of material fact by the appellant; and Customs authorities have also erred in not noting that the imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/CB - Dated:- 27-5-2015 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M.K. Sarangi, Asst. Commr (AR) ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran These appeals are directed against Orders-in-Original No. CAO/65/2011 dated 21.09.2013 and 107/2012 dated 28.09.2012. All these appeals are disposed of by a common order as the issue involved in these cases is arising out of the same impugned order. 2. The r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 penaltie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imported by them, for the cases in hand he would restrict the argument only to the limitation aspect. He would draw our attention to the fact that the bills of entries filed with the authorities correctly describes that the imported goods are CNG kits and components. He would submit that the assessment was a final assessment and along with documents they had submitted a certificate issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) indicated that imported goods are eligible for concessiona .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

C 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 under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder as unit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lls of Entry without providing on the package any such declaration that the goods were to be sold on the declared MRP. It is also his submission that the appellants were aware of the fact that the goods are sold on MRP and for which purpose he draws our attention to the invoice issued by the appellant wherein it was indicated that the goods were sold as per MRP. It is his submission that the appellant cannot raise the bogey of limitation as having not declared the MRP on package subscribed to de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ition 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icating that the goods imported by the appellant are eligible for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. We have noticed that the certificate as issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest is consignment specific and all the consignments cleared during the period August 2006 to July 2007 were based upon such certificate given and filed before the customs authorities. It is to be noted that there is no dispute that all the bills of entries have been finally assessed by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the assessing officer. If it is the claim of the Revenue that the appellant had not fixed the retail sale price on the imported package and those being 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version