TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC, New Delhi (ICD TKD) [2015 (11) TMI 549 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that there was no wilful mis-statement on the part of M/s Bosch Chassis Ltd. The representatives of the CHA have merely relied on the invoice handed over by M/s Bosch Chassis Ltd./ Importer - this case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case and is distinguishable. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/20052/2016-SM - Final Order No. 20133 / 2017 - Dated:- 20-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Parashiva Murthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 19.10.2015 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he company under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the appeal by the impugned order and hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order imposing penalty under Section 114AA is not legal and sustainable. He further submitted that Section 114AA was inserted in the Customs Act w.e.f. 13.07.2006 by Section 27 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 and legislative intention of the Government in enacting this provision has been explained by the Finance Ministry in Clause 24 of Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill 2005 and as per which this Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject Bill of Entry which he was obliged to do under Section 46(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. I find that this is a clear case of undervaluation of goods where the importer filed an under invoiced bill of entry for the clearance of imported machinery. Investigations revealed that a fabricated invoice had been submitted to the Customs by the Importer, which showed the invoice value as USD 50,430/- (CIF), whereas the actual invoice value of the said goods was USD 70,000/- as per the Invoice downloaded from his email. Besides, the Importer has accepted the under-invoicing done by him. He has also stated the method of payment of the difference in value to the supplier. From the investigations conducted, I also find that the importer had r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
