9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeals are arising out of Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 186 & 187-CUS/GZB/2012 dated 29/10/2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad. 2. On matter being called, appellants submitted request for adjournment. We have rejected the request for adjournment and heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtained a view that the said goods were liable for confiscation on said grounds also and penalty was required to be imposed. 4. On the above two grounds proceedings were initiated against the appellant proposing enhancement of value as also confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. The Original Adjudicating Authority enhanced the value from Rs. 14,13,672.53/- as declared by the appellant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces. In the said appeal the proceeding started with filing of Bill of Entry No.6774922 dated 09.05.2012, the concerned invoice was dated 22.03.2012. The discription of goods was same as in the case of Bill of Entry stated in forgoing paragraph. Through Order-in-Original dated 27.07.2012 declared assessable value of Rs. 17,65,870.40/- was enhanced to Rs. 37,36,800/-. The redemption fine was impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al corroborative evidence to show have paid more consideration to the foreign suppliers. The invoices raised by the foreign suppliers had not been challenged by Revenue in which case, the same becomes correct assessable value, being the transaction value. Since the invoice has not been rebutted by producing any evidence on record, we hold that the values declared by the appellant in the said Bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
