9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assette and other electronic items. Revenue on the basis of some intelligence launched an investigation and searched the premises of the appellant and recorded the statement of various persons. Mr. Johny Singh was the authorized representative of appellants No. 1 & 2. The show cause notice was issued on conclusion of investigation alleging under valuation of imported video cassettes. The case was adjudicated vide order in original dated 12/2005 dated 01.03.2005. On appeal filed by the appellant CESTAT found that the order in original dated 30.01.2005 was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and remanded the case for denovo adjudication as a result of which the impugned order was issued confirming customs duty of Rs. 3994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hanged between the supplier and the appellants and the goods were purchased on "as is where is" basis without any warranty. The supplier M/s. Sony Gulf FZE supplied goods on payment which was directly made to them by the appellants and therefore, the statements of the officials of Sony India that Sony does not supply recycled tapes is not correct. (v) As no samples of impugned goods were available as they had been cleared, the charge of under valuation cannot be sustained as there is nothing on record to show that the goods were of prime quality. (vi) They also imported Maxell and Fuzi make professional video cassettes whereas for the purpose of valuation even these imports have been taken to be of Sony Gulf FZE make. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an affidavit furnishing the record of the adjudication hearin, particularly the one dated 26.03.2010, to establish whether the appellant had eschewed cross-examination of persons mentioned in para 5 of his reply to the show cause notice. 4. Call on 28.01.2015." 5. In response to para 3 of the above quoted interim order Revenue has filed an affidavit wherein they have conceded that no record on personal hearing is available to substantiate as to what was recorded by the then Adjudicating Authority during the course of personal hearing on 26.03.2010 and therefore, Revenue is not in a position to confirm or deny as to whether the appellants eschewed cross examination of the persons whose statement were relied upon during adjudication. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
