9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in brief are that the appellant imported certain consignments of Ball Valves and Bibcock through Kolkata Port under three bills of entry dated 14.05.2009, 29.06.2009 and 28.07.2009. The said bills of entry were assessed by the proper Officer of Customs by value edition over the declared value in consonance with a departmental instruction. The goods so imported were cleared for home consumption. 3. On 07.01.2010, Officer of DRI, Mumbai searched the office and residential premises of the appellant and stock of goods lying in the office-cum- godown premises were seized/detained. During investigation, two proforma invoices No. TSI-090527 dated 27.05.2009 was recovered which contained value of similar item more than that declared in the invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant finding that "DRI in course of search of the appellant's business premises has found some blank invoices in the computer of the appellant. During recording of the statement, Shri Prakash Tiwari opened his e-mail account and downloaded blank invoices. Shri Tiwari stated that he used to fill up columns of rate and value of these invoices in consultation with the importer and took printouts on the supplier's stationery. Another importer, M/s. Trading Syndicate stated that Shri Tiwari was paid for such manipulations. Further, Shri Vipin Gupta, Proprietor o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onwards. Here the Show Cause notice and the Oder-in-Original straight away jumps to Rule 8 of CVR, which is not sustainable. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata-Vs-South India Television Private Ltd. reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C). 7. He further submitted that goods once cleared for home consumption and not available for confiscation cannot be held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. He relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Kumar Mahendra Exim Vs C C (I) , Nhava Sheva as reported in 2019 (365) E.L.T. 814 (Tri-Mumbai). 8. Learned A.R. appearing on behalf of the Department submitted that the investigation was taken on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
