TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pped the duty demand of Rs. 1,31,46,082/- against M/s. Connectronics Cables Pvt. Ltd. 2.As per facts on record, based upon the intelligence report, simultaneous searches were conducted at the business, factory and residential premises of M/s. Connectronics Cables Pvt. Ltd., and Shri Vinod Kumar Chawla. His son Shri Asheesh Chawla is residing with his father. Godown premises situated at Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, were also put to search on 10-12-96 and electronic components of phone and computers collectively valued at Rs. 14.89 lakhs were recovered and seized. (i) It is seen that during the course of search of the premises of the importer firm, various incriminating documents in the shape of statement of accounts, a fax message originating from Mirtex Enterprises (HK) Ltd., Taiwan, addressed to Life Electronics, were recovered and seized. The said statement of accounts contained invoice number and date, the items supplied, the actual price of the items and the prices as reflected in the invoices filed before the Customs, differential amount between the two, and the differential amount remitted by Shri Vinod Kumar Chawla, through personal cheques, demand drafts, telegr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taiwan; (d) That after the orders were placed on the fax, the out going fax messages were destroyed and that no record of price negotiations was kept by them; (e) That the prices of the products imported by them matched with the prices given in the quotations; (f) That they had kept copies of the quotations received and the copies of the invoices received for the products imported by them and that in 99% cases, the products imported by them as mentioned in the invoices could be tallied with the quotations received; (g) That he was not in a position to explain the difference in the price as indicated in the quotation and the one indicated in the import invoice enclosed with the Bills of Entry specifically mentioned in paras 9, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3; and (h) That he was not in a position to explain the entries contained in the statement of accounts referred to in para 3 supra. (iv) Statement of one Shri B.K. Dhingra, Director of one M/s. Instronics Ltd., was also recorded, wherein he admitted imports of various electronics components by the said firm but clarified that everything was being handled by the Chawalas and he was merely lending the name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal Shri U.H. Jadhav, submits that the Commissioner was not justified in dropping the demand of duty of Rs. 1,31,46,082/- in respect of the goods detailed in Chart "D" inasmuch as most of the goods listed in Chart "A", "B" and "C" were identical to the goods listed in Chart "D", having same generic description, same usage, same country of origin and same supplier and having been imported during the same period. Inasmuch as the transaction value of the goods under Chart "A", "B" and "C" has been rejected by the Commissioner and demands confirmed by enhancing the assessable value, the demand in terms of Chart "D" was also required to be confirmed. 8.After carefully considering the submissions made by both sides, and after going through the impugned order, we first propose to detail with the demand contained in Chart "B". The said demand is based upon the statement of accounts seized from the first appellant's premises during the course of search which has been faxed by M/s. Mirtex Enterprises HK Ltd., Taiwan, to the appellants No. 1. The appellants contended before the adjudicating authority that the said statement of accounts was seen by them for the first time at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llected by the revenue. As such, we uphold the confirmation of demand of Rs. 21,59,115/-, as worked out in Chart "B" to the show cause notice and as confirmed by the Commissioner. 10.Considering the demand of duty in terms of Chart "A", we find that the said demand is based upon the quotations in respect of five consignments. Such quotations were recovered during the course of search carried out at different premises. The prices at which the goods have been declared to the Customs and duty paid, is much less, almost to the extent of 80%, from the price as reflected in the said quotations. 11.The appellants have strongly contended that the demands cannot be confirmed on the basis of quotations, as held by the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also of the Tribunal. Reliance has been placed upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner v. Lord Shiva Overseas, 2005 (181) E.L.T. 213 = 2005 (68) RLT 591 (T) and M/s. Ramana International, 2005 (180) E.L.T. 368 laying down that transaction value cannot be upset on quotations and the same is well settled law. On the other hand ld. DR has referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in the case of Sharp Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntum of duty. 13.The Commissioner has dropped the demand of duty of Rs. 1,37,46,082/- as proposed in Chart "D" on the ground that no specific quotations in respect of the goods covered by various consignments listed in Chart "D" have been disclosed by the investigating agency. There is also no evidence like, statement of accounts in which consignment wise details proving under-valuation and repatriation of the differential value through illegal channels stood recorded. As such, he has held that the demand in Chart "D" cannot be confirmed by adopting the basis as disclosed in Chart "A" and "B", inasmuch as the same would amount to giving credence to assumptions and presumptions as against the above. Revenue in their memo of appeal has strongly contended that the majority of the goods listed in Chart "D" are identical to goods described in Chart "A" "B". As such the Commissioner should have applied the same value for the purposes of identical goods, listed in Chart "D". However, we find that the details of the goods listed in all the above Charts are not available. If the goods listed in Chart "A" and "B" are identical with the goods of Chart "D", we accept the ld. DR, proposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
