2017 (12) TMI 1458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hered by the Customs Intelligence Wing revealed that a registered consignment of goods stuffed in 15 containers which were to be sent to Khajuraho was intercepted at Mumbai port. The goods were examined and panchnama prepared by the customs authorities. According to the appellant, mis-declaration was established and it was also found that the respondent's claim of being 100% export oriented unit was not true and hence the respondent was not entitled to benefit of Customs Notification No.13/1981 dated 9th February, 1981. As a result show cause notice dated 7th November, 1996 was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 ("the Act") and further in the event of redemption, to show cause as to why the goods should not be assessed on merits denying benefit of Notification No.13/1981. 3. The case came to be adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs who by the order dated 18th December, 1996 confiscated the goods under Section 111(d), (f) and (n) of the Act but an option was given to redeem the goods on payment of the redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- and payment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e from Rs. 1.25 Crores to 10% of CIF value of Rs. 1,73,47,655 & enhancing the same in respect of personal penalty from Rs. 5 Lakhs to 5% of the CIF value respectively imposed/ levied by the adjudicating authority notwithstanding the fact that this was not a case of isolated conduct on the part of the Respondent (Tribunal at Delhi has upheld the order of confiscation of the self-same goods against the Respondent) ? 2. Whether CESTAT was justified in rejecting the L.M.V. of goods in question fixed at Rs.,7,63,30,000 by the Department on the basis of market inquiries which fact was mentioned in the show cause notice at page 44 read with page 53 of the Paper Book simply because the tentative CIF value of Rs. 5.84 crores as mentioned in the Panchnama was reduced to Rs. 1,73,47,665 in the show cause notice (page 52) overlooking the fact that the tentative L.M.V. as shown in the Panchnama was Rs. 11.68 crores? 3. Whether the CESTAT was right in law in admitting / examining additional evidence submitted by the importer (respondent) after multiple rounds of litigation ?" 7. Mr. Jetly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the customs authorities submitted that the order passed by the tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the matter had been delayed for very long and additional evidence ought not to have been considered at a belated stage. Mr. Jetly invited our attention to the fact that additional evidence was accepted by the Tribunal without any proof of its contents and it is only based on the certification of the Chartered Accountant that the local market value of the goods were taken. He submitted that the customs department had objected to the consideration of value of the goods in the Chartered Accountant's certificate and submitted that the revenue has opposed various deductions as per certificate of the Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal ignored the objections and proceeded to reduce the amount of redemption fine and penalty without any justification. Mr. Jetly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in K.R. Engineering Works v/s. Commissioner of Central Excise in support of his contention that the respondent could not have been permitted to make out new case at the Appellate Stage and this is what the respondents had done by relying upon the additional evidence. He faulted the order of the tribunal on this aspect. 11. According to Mr. Jetly there was voluminous evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the working of CIF value of the goods in the local market value did not find specific mention in the annexure to the show cause notice which arbitrarily computed local market value at Rs. 7,93,30,000/-. He submitted that this value was incorrectly arrived at since essentially, the CIF value was taken as basis of computation of redemption fine as well as penalty. Mr. Shroff pointed out that in the panchnama the value of the goods was mentioned as Rs. 5,84,15,000 (CIF) and market value is Rs. 11,68,900/- whereas in the show cause notice the CIF value is admittedly shown as Rs. 1,73,47,655/- and therefore Rs. 3,46,95,310/- should not be taken as the market value. 16. Mr. Shroff submitted that mention of Rs. 3.46 crores in the Chartered Accountants certificate was only a figure proposed for the sake of argument and did not amount to an admission of market value. Mr. Shroff also pointed out that similar questions were raised in Customs Appeal No.13 of 2006 filed by the Commissioner of Customs against the respondent in this Court and in its judgment dated 21st March, 2006 this Court found that each case has to be examined on own facts and in each case exemption of the option and penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation for raising additional grounds and to bring additional evidence on record. When such additional evidence was tendered the department's representative did not raise any objection to the Miscellaneous Application and/or the documents sought to be filed. We find that the tribunal had recorded that the additional grounds are in furtherance of additional evidence comprising of documents which were existing when the impugned order of the Commissioner was passed and which were in the nature of representations to the Customs authorities, in correspondence. The Tribunal found that since the additional ground and evidence were vital for the purpose of disposal of the appeals. The Miscellaneous Application came to be allowed, in the interest of justice to the extent it relates to determination of quantum of fine and penalty and also because this Court had previously remitted the case for determination of the quantum of fine and penalty. The Tribunal considered a Chartered Accountant's certificate which was already on record and found that the imports were effected only against import license covering the goods in question. 20. We have considered the certificate issued by the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vt. Ltd. (supra). 22. Mr. Jetly had relied upon the observations of the Delhi High Court in respect of CIF value. Paragraphs 5 and 6 were pressed into service in support of his contention that additional evidence ought not to have been permitted. In that case it was found that the appellant had not filed any document in support of its plea before the Additional Commissioner or before the Commissioner (Appeals) and it was for the first time that the appellant had filed documents before the Tribunal. It was found that the tribunal had rightly rejected the appellant's case since there was no evidence on record in support of his case. This judgment also in our view is of no assistance to the appellants. In the circumstances, there is no substance in Mr. Jetly's contention that additional evidence ought not to have been allowed. Once the department failed to object to admission of document and its contents, it was not open for the revenue to question the impugned order on the basis that the additional evidence ought not to have been allowed. Even otherwise, it is seen that the documents sought to be introduced were not new documents which were not available with the authorities....