2023 (5) TMI 456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r being old, the same was decided to be heard on merits by us, however, in the interest of justice, Shri. Mainsh Jain, Advocate available in the court and being sufficiently experienced in direct tax practice was appointed as Amicus Curiae by the bench and matter proceeded accordingly. 2. The facts of the case under consideration, in brief, are that the appellant had filed BOE No. 2026416/03.05.2013 for clearance of 288.300 MTS of Heavy Melting Scrap (CTH 72044900) declaring assessable value of Rs. 64.51.916/-. During first-check examination, it was revealed that the cargo contained 87.350 MTs of Rail Material Scrap (CTH 73021090) with only the remaining 200.950 MTs of HMS. Consequent to admission of mistake and waiver of their right to SC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant had accepted the enhanced value: vi. Appellant also relied upon the case law of Vardhaman Tradelink P. Ltd .- 2009 (236) ELT 72 (Tri.Ahmd). Commissioner (Appeals) on examination of various submissions decided the matter in favour of the party, setting aside adjudication order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order, department has filed the present appeal seeking setting aside of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the Order-In-Original. In grounds of appeal by the department (pressed through Authorized Representative), the following grounds inter alia, were taken. Show cause notice was waived by the party vide their letter dated 14.05.2013 accepting mis-description. This letter was never produced befo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....outh African origin, as per the certificate of origin produced by the party. 4. On the other hand, Shri. Manish Jain, (Amicus Curiae) assisting the bench pointed out that subsequent to circular of 2006 i.e. the circular no. 08/2006-Cus. dated 17.01.2006 was quashed by both Madras High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court. On challenge before the Supreme Court matters were remanded as noted in M/s. FLTURISTICS METAL TRADING PVT LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-I- reported in 2017-TIOL-4362-CESTAT-CHD. The advocate also fairly brought to our notice that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEA PORT-IMPORT),CHENNAI Vs. INDO DEUTSCHE TRADE LINKS as reported in -2017 (348) ELT ....