TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported through other ports can be different as the Place of importation itself was different and hence difference in MRP is quite natural. In the instant case the goods were imported through different ports. That itself is a valid reason for the difference in price. There is no evidence to suggest that the goods so imported through different ports under different MRP were being sold at same price. Hence, the price difference cannot be attributed to suppression of the value by the Appellant. Accordingly, the demand is not sustainable. The self-assessment of the Bills of Entry by the importer was not challenged by the department. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV [ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he has evaded Additional duty of customs amounting to Rs.65,741/- by way of undervaluation in as much as cement from the same manufacturer in Bangladesh imported through Agartala L.C.S. was having a higher MRP of Rs. 305/- per bag of 50 Kg. 3. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 21.09.2015, confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalty. However, the goods were not confiscated, as the same were not available for confiscation. 4. Aggrieved against the said Order-in-Original, the Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Guwahati, on the ground that the impugned Bills of Entry which were self-assessed were not challenged by the department and hence they became final. The Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf-assessed were not challenged by the department and hence became final. As held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Ltd, unless the original Assessment by the assessing officer is challenged, the department cannot demand differential duty subsequently by issuing a demand Notice. 7. The Appellant cited the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of I.T.C. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [2019(368) ELT 216 (SC) wherein it has been held that the department cannot demand differential duty without challenging the selfassessment made by the importer. Accordingly they contended that the impugned order is not sustainable. 8. The Ld A.R reiterated the findings in the impugned order 9. The issue involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Finance Act, 2011, we are of the opinion that the claim for refund cannot be entertained unless the order of assessment or self-assessment is modified in accordance with law by taking recourse to the appropriate proceedings and it would not be within the ken of Section 27 to set aside the order of self-assessment and reassess the duty for making refund; and in case any person is aggrieved by any order which would include self-assessment, he has to get the order modified under Section 128 or under other relevant provisions of the Act. 11. We observe that the ratio of the above said decision is squarely applicable in this case. We find that the impugned order passed demanding differential duty without challenging the original assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
