TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andatory penalty prescribed under Section 114A ibid should not be at a lesser side. Since, the issue involved in the case relates to confiscation of goods and related contravention of the statutory provisions, Section 114A ibid cannot at all be invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/740/2012 - Final Order No. A/88542/2018-WZB - Dated:- 12-12-2018 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) and Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T) Ms. Trupti Chavan, AR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : S.K. Mohanty, Member (J)]. - Brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal are as under : 1.1 The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Delhi Zonal Unit received a specific intelligence tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/- declared by him at the time of import should not be rejected in terms of Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act ibid and the goods should not be assessed at the revised total value amounting to ₹ 4,64,54,086/- worked out in terms of Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, 1988/Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, 2007 and Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 1988/Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules, 2007. (ii) The imported [goods] having a revised assessable value of ₹ 4,64,54,086/- should not be confiscated in terms of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) Customs duty to the tune of ₹ 74,90,065/- short paid by them on account of under-invoicing in their imports should not be de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, is legal and proper? 2. Heard Learned AR for Revenue. None appeared for the respondent, despite notice. 3. We have examined the case records. The show cause notice, dated 4-6-2010 at paragraph 31 has recorded that the same is being issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with proviso to Section 28(1) ibid. On perusal of the proposals made in the show cause notice, it reveals that M/s. Nagpal International and its proprietor Mr. Rakesh Nagpal were basically called upon to show cause, as to why the declared value shall not be rejected and re-determined under various provisions of the Valuation Rules, 1988. Further, there were also proposals for confiscation of the revised assessable value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending goods in question. Mere mention of the proviso to Section 28(1) ibid in the said notice will not alter the stand that the case relates to short-levy or non-levy of the duty amount, especially when such liability has not been determined by way of adjudication. Further, it is also observed that the impugned order, though has specifically mentioned that Mr. Rakesh Nagpal was liable for penal action for his acts of omission or commission under the provisions of Section 114A ibid, but in the order portion the provisions of Section 112(a) (b) ibid have been invoked for imposition of penalty on Mr. Rakesh Nagpal. Invocation of the provisions Section 112(a) (b) ibid in the impugned order is in conformity with the statutory mandates inasm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
