9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/2014-LINGS / FULL Stack (HW only)' from M/s. HCOM Ltd., Singapore vide Bill of Entry No.376051 dt. 27/02/2007. Thereafter proceedings were initiated by the Customs Department vide show-cause notice dt. 08/06/2007 issued by Assistant Commissioner of Customs alleging that the value of similar goods imported by other parties such as Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. and Siemens Public Communications was much higher and hence the transaction value declared by the appellant was liable to be rejected and its value was liable to be re-determined under Rule 6 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Further it was alleged that the appellant has resorted to mis-declaration of the value of goods imported by them and hence the imported goods were liable to confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as mis-declaration of the value of the imported goods is concerned, the show-cause notice only referred to the contemporaneous imports of similar goods by Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. and Siemens Public Communication, Bangalore but the assessment was not challenged. He further submitted that demand of duty without challenging the assessment is bad in law as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000(120) ELT 285 (SC)]. 4.2. As far as merit is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the goods imported by the appellant were not similar and much less identical to the goods imported by Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. and Siemens Public Communications as alleged in the show-cause notice. He also submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 533 (Tri. Mumbai)] 4.4. Further learned counsel also challenged the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) on the ground that the conditions mentioned in Section 112(a) are not fulfilled. 5. Learned AR for the Department defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that in the first place, the demand of differential duty under Section 28 of the Act is not sustainable as the same has not been invoked in the show-cause notice and therefore the demand is beyond the show-cause notice. Further we find that the Revenue has not challenged the assessment which is complete and without challenging the assessment, the demand cannot be made. Further we find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
