Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Aneja Steels Versus CCE, Noida

2015 (5) TMI 962 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Confiscation of goods - Enhancement of value - Penalty u/s 112 - Held that:- One of the persons whose opinion was sought gave the value which was even lower than the value declared by the appellant. The transaction value was sought to be rejected as per the Show Cause Notice essentially because the goods were alleged to be mis-declared in description thereof. Once the goods were held to have been correctly described by the appellant, the very basis of rejecting the transaction value disappeared, .....

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 value of the imported goods can be had only after the assessing officer rejects the transaction value in terms of Rule 12 of the said Rules on account of having reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value. The impugned order does not disclose any basis for any such reasonable doubt after having accepted the description of the goods to be correct. Thus, we do not find the upward revision of value sustainable and as a consequence there remains no ground to order confisc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sified under Customs Tariff Heading 7204 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 ordered to be confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act 1962, redemption fine of ₹ 1,30,000/- imposed, the value enhanced upwards to US $ 37447.43 (C&F) from the declared value of US $ 26529.75, and penalty of ₹ 50,000/- levied under section 112 ibid. 2. The appellant had imported high-speed steel scrap and declared assessable value of ₹ 13,16,890/-. The Revenue alleged the goods to be reusab .....

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, there was no basis for not accepting the declared value and there was also no ground for ordering mutilation. It is also contended that no basis has been given to reject the transaction, value and to revise the value upwards. 4. The Ld. D.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that the adjudicating authority has accepted the declaration of the appellant as regards the description of goods. Therefore, it i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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