9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, Advocate, for appellant Shri Roopam Kapoor, Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Both these appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (NS-III), JNCH, Nhava Sheva. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd. (for short, the appellant company) is the importer of aluminium profiles and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.2016, wherein the declared classification of aluminium profiles under CTH 76042990 was rejected and the same was reclassified under CTH 83021090 of CTA, 1975. In respect of imports made through Nhava Sheva, Mumbai, the impugned order has confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs. 1,26,62,564/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellant company. Besides, penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt confirmation of the adjudged demands by the adjudicating authority cannot be sustained. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The show cause notice dated 30.9.2014, in paragraph 3, has referred to the statement recorded from the appellant No.2, who is the Managing Director of the appellant company. The said statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Pursuant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d catalogue of "Aluminium Profiles" furnished by the appellant, has recorded specific findings in para 12 at pages 9, 10 and 11 in the impugned order to support the stand of classification of subject goods under CTH 830219090. The appellants have not adduced any material evidence to counter such claim by Revenue. Further, we find that the voluntary statement recorded under summon was never retract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lties on appellant No.2 will not stand for judicial scrutiny. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions and analysis, the impugned order, to the extent it confirmed the duty demand along with interest and imposed penalty on the appellant company, sustains and the appeal to such extent by the appellant company is dismissed. However, the impugned order, so far as it imposed penalty on appellant No.2, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
