9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner submitted that the petitioner imported polyester knitted fabric declaring its value at Rs. 12,06,944/-, however, the department found the same to be bonded and woven fabric and assessed the value thereof at Rs. 72,97,160/-. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for determination of value of goods imported and duty payable on that. Show cause notice for levy of penalty was also issued. The petitioner approached the Commission. Finally vide order dated 14-5-2012, the Commission assessed customs duty at Rs. 39,00,327/-. Redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- was levied in case the petitioner wanted to get the confiscation of goods revoked. Personal penalty was also levied. 3. The contention raised by learned counsel for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner, who appeared before the Commission, conceded for levy of CVD and it was in the light of that fact that the petitioner was granted substantial concession in levy of redemption fine and the penalty, hence, the order does not call for any interference. He further submitted that at the relevant time the issue as to whether CVD was leviable on the goods imported by the petitioner was not finally settled. This was the reason that the counsel for the petitioner conceded for levy of that duty. The issue was settled only in SRF Ltd.'s case (supra) in the year 2015. While referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2010 (251) E.L.T. 3, it was submitted that the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court opined that any order passed by the Commission can be interfered with, if it is found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. In The Union of India and others v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd., 2015 (7) Scale 39 = 2015 (320) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon its earlier judgment in Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd.'s case (supra) upheld the judgment of High Court, whereby the matter was remitted back to the Commission finding the same to be against the provisions of law. Relevant paras thereof are extracted below :- "11. On that basis the High Court has concluded that the Commission committed an error by applying wrong principle in law, by treating even the float glass used for manufacture, that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 56 (S.C.) laying down the same proposition as noted in the case of Rajasthan State Chemical Works (Supra). 13. In the process, the High Court has also interpreted Rule 57D and Rule 57A(4) of the Rules. It would be pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid legal position, as stated by the High Court, could not be dislodged by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. 14. From the aforesaid it becomes clear that the High Court has not interfered with the facts which were recorded by the Settlement Commission. On the contrary, the facts noted above remained undisputed. On those facts the High Court has simply stated the correct legal position where the Settlement Commission had gone wrong in law. Thus, the High Court ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
