TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT, the MRP had to be altered and had affixed the higher MRP on the goods while supplying to ELCOT. The appellant has purchased backpack locally. In such circumstances the appellant, no doubt, is entitled to add this value while supplying to ELCOT. It is not a case where only the imported laptop computer is supplied to ELCOT. According to appellant, they procured the backpack which has market price of Rs.2500/- at a negotiated price of Rs.225/-. The appellant has affixed the new increased MRP on the basis of purchase price agreed with ELCOT. This purchase price includes the price of laptop computer, backpack, the booklet, instruction guide etc. It can be seen that even though a methodology to ascertain the RSP is laid down, the same will apply only in situations of (a) and (b) of subsection (4) of Section 4A. On examining the facts, the appellant has adopted a new RSP for the combined goods of laptop computer + carry bag + booklet + Instruction guide. The department has redetermined the RSP of the imported laptop computer alleging misdeclaration of MRP. As there is no methodology or machinery for redetermining the MRP of goods imported for the purpose of payment of CVD, we hold tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic provisions for levy of interest, penalty in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The said decision was upheld by Hon ble Apex Court in 2023 (8) TMI 135 - SC ORDER . Following the same, we hold that the confiscation of goods, interest on CVD, redemption fine and penalties cannot sustain on this ground also. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Senior Advocate Shri Anurag Kapur, Advocate Shri Rohan Muralidharan, Advocate Shri S. Ganesh Aravindh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri P. Narasimha Rao, Commissioner, Authorised Representative. ORDER Brief facts are that the appellant has been importing and clearing notebook / laptop computers and supplying the same to M/s. Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (herein after referred to as ELCOT ) and other state Government agencies for free distribution to students. On specific intelligence that the appellant has been suppressing the actual sale price by mis-declaring the MRP to evade Customs duty (CVD), officers of SIIB conducted inspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laptop and the carry bag are covered under the Legal Metrology Act, declaring the RSP on the laptop was mandatory. The RSP of the laptop was decided by the company and RSP of the carry bag which was procured locally was declared as provided by the supplier. 1.5 The laptops were preloaded with software and the import invoice price was US$ 226.30. They had obtained the Special Valuation Branch Order No. 465/2013 dated 25.04.2013 which accepted the transaction value with its related party suppliers under Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. 1.6 The Department noted that there was much difference in the MRP affixed on the laptops at that time of import and the MRP that was affixed on the laptop along with the carry bag which was to be supplied to ELCOT. At the time of import, in some Bills of Entry, the MRP declared for laptop alone was Rs.14,399/- whereas the MRP declared for supply to ELCOT with carry bag and inclusive of VAT was Rs.16,789/-. The importer claimed that the difference in the price is because supply to ELCOT was to be made along with laptop bag whereas the order placed with the foreign supplier was only for laptop. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as Special Additional Duty of Customs ( SAD ) in terms of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 and Notification No. 21/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 respectively. 2.3 Generally, the laptops imported by the Appellant for retail sale in India falls in two categories, viz. a) laptops imported for sale to retail customers and b) Laptops imported for supply to Central/State Government agencies for their own use or for further free distribution to students and other beneficiaries. 2.4 The present dispute is confined to the MRP adopted by the Appellant for the purpose of payment of CVD in respect of Laptops imported by Appellant for sale to State Government agency namely ELCOT, along with other goods and services as required in the tender(s) issued by ELCOT. 2.5 During the relevant period, the Appellant was awarded with a contract by ELCOT to supply Laptops, Laptop back packs, user manual, instruction guide. Details of the same are tabulated below: Period of Import Quantity of Imports ELCOT Purchase Order Price for Laptop with Bags (inclusive of VAT) May to August 2012 200250 13939 Mar-April 2013 96095 16790 May-June 2013 110000 16790 May-June 2014 130950 16486 Total 5,37, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008. SUBMISSIONS: 3. MRP of imported laptops cannot be re-determined in the absence of machinery for the same in Section 3(2) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975: 3.1 Under the Central Excise Act, 1944, predominantly the following two methods of valuation have been prescribed for levy of Central Excise duty on manufacture of goods: Excise Duty payable on Transaction Value based assessment (Section 4 of Central Excise Act) Excise Duty payable on MRP based assessment (Section 4A of Central Excise Act) Background to introduction of MRP based assessment in Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944: 3.2 MRP based assessment was introduced in Central Excise Act, 1944 vide Finance Act, 1997. However, the provisions relating to re-determination of MRP/RSP was introduced through sub-section (4) only vide Finance Act, 2003 wherein, it was specified that MRP will be re-determined as prescribed by the Rules. 3.3 Pertinently, Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 ( RSP Rules ) to operationalise Sub-section (4) of Section 4A were framed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2), it can be seen that Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is a standalone code. It is not a legislation by reference to Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 but a legislation by incorporation. Consequently, there is no provision under Section 3 for re-determination of MRP of imported goods and for application of amendments made to Section 4A [in 2003 when Section 4A (4) was introduced] and RSP Rules 2008 to bring in the methodologies for re-determination of CVD payable on imports on MRP basis. 3.8 In other words, though the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 has borrowed the Notification issued under Section 4A (1) and the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4A for the purposes of payment of CVD on imported goods on the basis of MRP declared, the provisions for re-determination of RSP under Section 4A (4) and the RSP Rules made thereunder have not been borrowed to Section 3 (2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3.9 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions, wherein it has been held that MRP/RSP of imported goods cannot be re-determined with reference to the provisions of Section 4A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the RSP Rules, 2008: a) ABB Ltd. v. CC [2011 (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000. b) Rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of imported Goods) Rules, 2007. c) Rule 6 of Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008. 4.4 As per Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, if the value of any excisable goods cannot be determined under the foregoing rules, the value shall be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act . It is pointed out that Rule 6 of RSP Rules, 2008 is also similarly worded. 4.5 Thus, it can be seen that even under the best judgment method, the means used to determine value must be consistent with the principles and general provisions of the Rules. 4.6 It is submitted that value cannot be determined arbitrarily by adopting methodologies alien to the principles and provisions of the Rules. Such unbridled powers cannot be assumed to be conferred for determining value under the best judgment method. If it is assumed, then it will render the provisions arbitrary and constitute a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even the validity of the Rules would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ethod of valuation has not been prescribed anywhere. 4.12 Thus, the MRP of laptops ought to have been determined based on supply of similar laptops available in market (with suitable adjustments) or supply of similar laptops made by other suppliers to ELCOT. No market enquiries were conducted by the Department at any point in time. 4.13 Even assuming but without admitting that Rule 6 of the RSP Rules provide for determination of value of imported laptops by deducting price of laptop bags from composite price charged for both laptops and laptop bags, the deduction of the purchase price of bags i.e., Rs. 225/- is incorrect. In other words, while computing the MRP of the laptop from the sale price/MRP of laptop + bags, the cost of bags cannot be taken as deduction. For parity, it is the MRP of the bag which should be deducted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE v. Acer India Ltd. [2004 (172) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.)] and Gannon Dunkerley and Co. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan Ors. [(1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases 364]. Thus, the computation methodology adopted by the Department is ex facie arbitrary. Further, the Customs Department, under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yable to dealers, and all charges towards advertisement, delivery, packing, forwarding and the like, as the case may be, and the price is the sole consideration for such sale. 5.3 In this regard, it is submitted that the quoted price cannot be taken as the combined MRP for the Laptop and Laptop bags as only the Purchase Order price can be collected by the Appellant for the sale of imported laptops and bags which were tailormade for supply to ELCOT. In this regard, the Appellant submits that in the case of PG Electroplast v. CCE [2014 (307) E.L.T. 787 (Tri. - Del.)] in the context of supply of Television Sets to ELCOT, the Tribunal has accepted the valuation of such televisions under Section 4A where MRP was declared as per the contract price/purchase order price to ELCOT. 5.4 Therefore, even assuming without admitting that it is the purchase price of bags that is to be deducted i.e., Rs. 225/-, it must be deducted from the finally agreed ELCOT purchase order price and not the quoted price. Details of the quoted price (MRP affixed for supply to ELCOT) and ELCOT purchase order price during the relevant period is shown below:- Sl. No. Period of Import Quantity of Imports Quoted Price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Customs Act, 1962, also submitted a brief note on their valuation methodology stating that the 16,331 laptop notebooks are meant for supply to Tamil Nadu schools; that these laptops are intended to be sold with carry case and all required software at the MRP of Rs. 16,899/- inclusive of laptop carry case. The Appellant also enclosed a working sheet involving calculation of MRP in respect of import laptops. 7.4 Pertinently, on 12.07.2013, Mr. B K Prakash, in his statement, stated that they have received orders from ELCOT for supply of 1,10,000 Nos. of laptop computers with carry bag. They purchased the backpacks at Rs, 225/- inclusive of tax to supply along with the laptops. When specifically questioned as to why they declared a low MRP of Rs. 14,399/- when the actual sale price for the laptop supplied to ELCOT is Rs. 15,990/-, he stated that the laptop sale price was inclusive of the cost of the carry bag also and therefore the combined price of the laptop and carry bag has to be taken into consideration while comparing the sale price to ELCOT. In fact, on 20.09.2013, Mr. BK Prakash was specifically questioned by the Department as to who decided on the high MRP of Rs. 2500/- for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, it is to be noted that the CTA has limited machinery provisions and therefore it borrows various provisions from the Customs Act for implementation of its provisions. Section 3(8) of the CTA (now Section 3(12) of CTA) is the borrowing provision regarding additional customs duty. (8) The provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and the rules and regulations made thereunder, including those relating to drawbacks, refunds and exemption from duties, shall, so far as may be, apply to the duty chargeable under this section as they apply in relation to the duties leviable under that Act. 8.2 The Appellant submits that, on a reading of the above provision, it is clear that Section 3 of CTA which levies duties other than Basic customs duty borrows the procedural provisions of Customs Act, however substantive provisions relating to penalty, confiscation, fine and interest from the Customs Act is not explicitly borrowed. 8.3 In this regard, the Bombay High Court in Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India [2022 (10) TMI 212 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has considered a similar issue on levy of interest and penalty in relation to C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore appellant cannot deduct Rs.2500/- per bag to arrive at the MRP of the composite goods. 9.2 The decision in the case of Nitco Tiles Vs CC (Import) Mumbai 2014-TIOL-1544-CESTAT-MUM was relied by the Ld. A.R to argue that in the said decision a similar issue was considered. It is prayed by Ld. A.R that appeal may be dismissed. 10. Heard both sides. 11. The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the rejection of MRP declared on the laptops imported by appellant and redetermination of the MRP is legal and sustainable. The other issues that arise consequently are (i) whether the order of confiscation of the impugned goods, the demand of differential Countervailing Duty (CVD) along with interest, the imposition of Redemption Fine and penalties are sustainable or not. 11.1 According to department, the appellant has undervalued the goods imported by declaring a lesser MRP and thus evaded payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD). 11.1.1 It is to be noted that the imports were registered under Special Valuation Branch as the importer and supplier were admittedly related parties. The SVB Order No.465/2013 dt. 25.04.2013 was passed accepting the transaction value with its forei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplying to ELCOT. 13. As per the Tender issued by ELCOT, Para 4 of the Tender document speaks about the scope of work. Para 4.1.1 provides for the laptop computer specification. Para 4.1.2 provides for Backpack specification. Para 4.4.2 reads as under : Traceability Identification The laptop computers supplied under the scheme are meant to be distributed to the students in Tamil Nadu, in order to prevent the misuse of the laptop computers screen printing / tamper-proof sticker of lay out to be specified by ELCOT (Government logo, image and scheme name) shall be marked on the top side of the laptop computers and front side of the laptop computer backpack . 14. The letter issued by ELCOT to appellant dated 17.4.2013 and the purchase order dt. 30.05.2013 is reproduced as under : 15. The purchase price is Rs.15,990 plus 5% TNVAT (15,990 + 799.50 = 16,789.50). The above documents would show that the purchase price agreed by appellant and ELCOT was for supply of laptop with carry bag / backpack. It also included supply of user manual in Tamil and English as a single booklet and Do s and Don ts instruction guide in Tamil and English. The appellant has purchased backpack locally. In suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o their vendor to affix the stickers showing MRP of Rs. 2500/-. 17. It is noteworthy to mention that as per SCN itself the increased MRP was affixed as a combined MRP of both laptop and backpack as Rs.16,899/-. Investigation conducted by visit of officers to the warehouse revealed that the higher MRP is affixed as combined MRP and not of laptop computer alone. The second para of impugned order reads as under : 2. It was discovered by the departmental officers that there were 16,331 Nos. of ASPIRE E1-431 Part No.NX. M8VSI.001 laptop computers with Tamil Nadu Government Logo pasted in the form of sticker on the carton boxes and a rubber stamping with the words Box 1 2 shipped with combined MRP of Rs.16,899/-. In the said godown. On enquiry, it was confirmed that the laptop bags were purchased locally and packed in a box and that a combined MRP of Rs.16,899/- had been affixed in respect of both laptop computer and the laptop gag. Copies of several tax invoices billed to various schools in Nilgiris District were also found and detained. 18. On the basis of this combined new MRP, department has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant has misdeclared the MRP at the time of import. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tured in India, or in case where such like article is not so produced or manufactured, then, the class or description of articles to which the imported article belongs, is (i) the goods specified by notification in the Official Gazette under sub-section (1) of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the value of the imported article shall be deemed to be the retail sale price declared on the imported article less such amount of abatement, if any, from such retail sale price as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, allow in respect of such like article under sub-section (2) of section 4A of that Act; or (ii) the goods specified by notification in the Official Gazette under section 3 read with clause (1) of Explanation III of the Schedule to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (16 of 1955), the value of the imported article shall be deemed to be the retail sale price declared on the imported article less such amount of abatement, if any, from such retail sale price as the Central Government may, be notification in the Official Gazette, allow in respect of such like article under clause (2) of the said Explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il sale price of any excisable goods under sub-section (4) of section 4A of the Act, shall be determined in accordance with these rules. RULE 4 . Where a manufacturer removes the excisable goods specified under sub-section (1) of section 4A of the Act, - (a) without declaring the retail sale price on the packages of such goods; or (b) by declaring the retail sale price, which is not the retail sale price as required to be declared under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) or rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force; or (c) by declaring the retail sale price but obliterates the same after their removal from the place of manufacture, then, the retail sale price of such goods shall be ascertained in the following manner, namely :- (i) if the manufacturer has manufactured and removed identical goods, within a period of one month, before or after removal of such goods, by declaring the retail sale price, then, the said declared retail sale price shall be taken as the retail sale price of such goods : (ii) if the retail sale price cannot be ascertained in terms of clause (i), the retail sale price of such goods shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such goods, to which the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply. (2) Where the goods specified under sub-section (1) are excisable goods and are chargeable to duty of excise with reference to value, then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 4, such value shall be deemed to be the retail sale price declared on such goods less such amount of abatement, if any, from such retail sale price as the Central Government may allow by notification in the Official Gazette. (3) The Central Government may, for the purpose of allowing any abatement under sub-section (2), take into account the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on such goods. (4) Where any goods specified under sub-section (1) are excisable goods and the manufacturer - (a) removes such goods from the place of manufacture, without declaring the retail sale price of such goods on the packages or declares a retail sale price which is not the retail sale price as required to be declared under the provisions of the Act, rules or other law as referred to in sub-section (1); or (b) tampers with, obliterates or alters the retail sale price declared on the package of such goods after their r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of ABB Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore 2011 (272) ELT 706 (Tri.-Bang.) considered this issue for the period prior to 1.3.2008 (disputed period 3.1.2003 to 31.3.2007) and held that there is no machinery / provisions for ascertaining RSP, when the RSP is not declared by importer on imported articles. The differential CV Duty demand, interest and penalties were set aside. The provisions under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for CVD on notified goods remain to be the same and this case is therefore squarely applicable. The relevant paras are reproduced as under : 2 . Facts of the case in brief are as follows. Pursuing intelligence that M/s. ABB Ltd., Bangalore (ABB) was importing electrical apparatus falling under Chapter Heading 85.36 of Customs Tariff Act, 75 (CTA) and Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA, 85) and selling the same from their warehouse to their channel partners (dealers) others, mis-classifying them under 8538 of CTA CETA in the Bills of Entry without declaring their Retail Sale Price (RSP) for the assessment of CVD under Section 3 of the CTA read with Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA) and Notification No. 13/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2002. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax is payable by this category prior to 1-1- 2005. If that by (sic) so, then the amount paid by the appellant is not a tax, which the revenue cannot kept (sic) with it. 18. Excerpts from the Apex Court s judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) were cited by the revenue in support of the claim that the retail sale price could be validly determined even in the absence of Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 following the principles informing the legislative policy prescribing RSP as the value. We find that the judgment elaborately deals with interpretation of the language of a statute in such a manner to effectuate the intention of the legislature. In the case on hand, we are not faced with the task of interpreting a provision which can accommodate more than one meaning. We are also faced with the argument of the assessee that when RSP was not declared on the packages, the same had to be ascertained in the manner prescribed in the statute. As regards the CVD levied under CTA on goods notified for RSP based assessment, CTA does not have similar provisions as contained in the Central Excise (Determination of Retail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of facts on import in misdeclaring the MRP and non-applicability of the cited case laws relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this connection, we note that the Commissioner (Appeals) categorically recorded that there is no dispute in respect of description, classification and quantity of the impugned goods and the appellant had declared RSP. He, therefore, found that the adjudicating authority could not proceed to determine the MRP/RSP in absence of any enabling provisions in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as held by the Tribunal in ABB Ltd. (supra). He also relied on the other decided cases holding similar view. We note that the decision of the Tribunal has not been stayed, though the appeal is still pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court. As such, we have no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the impugned order, which has relied on the decision of the Tribunal not reversed by any higher authorities. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 24.2 The Ld. A.R has relied upon the decision in the case of Nitco Tiles (supra). There was difference of opinion between the Members and it was referred to Third Member for resolving the difference of opinion. The Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Act, 1944 to an assessment of additional duties of customs under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is seen from the provisions therein that, for the purpose of additional duties of customs, the default mechanism is SECTION 3 . xxx (2) For the purpose of calculating under sub-sections (1) and (3), the additional duty on any imported article, where such duty is leviable at any percentage of its value, the value of the imported article shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), be the aggregate of (i) the value of the imported article determined under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) or the tariff value of such article fixed under sub-section (2) of that section, as the case may be; and (ii) any duty of customs chargeable on that article under section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and any sum chargeable on that article under any law for the time being in force as an addition to, and in the same manner as, a duty of customs, but does not include (a) the duty referred to in sub-sections (1), (3) and (5); (b) the safeguard duty referred to in sections 8B and 8C; (c) the counter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of the Tribunal in Schneider Electrical. Conclusions (i) When sub-section (4) of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, as substituted in 2003, specifically provides that the RSP shall be ascertained in the prescribed manner and the prescribed manner is the manner to be prescribed by the rules to be framed under section 37 of the Central Excise Act read with sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Central Excise Act, the RSP has to be ascertained only in terms of the 2008 Rules; (ii) It is a settled principle of law that a tax or a cess or a duty can be levied strictly in accordance with law and a taxing statute has to be strictly construed. In the present case, the words used in sub-section (4) of section 4A are that the RSP shall be ascertained in the prescribed manner. Thus, any duty of excise which is collected not in accordance with the manner prescribed, would be without authority of law; (iii) It, therefore, follows that it would be impermissible for any adjudicating authority to ascertain the RSP by any other methodology, for such an ascertainment would be contrary to the statutory prescription contained in sub-section (4) of section 4A and would have the effect of empower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RP cannot be sustained. Consequently, the demand of differential duty also cannot be sustained and require to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. 28. The Ld. Counsel had adverted to the decision in the case of PG Electroplast Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Noida - 2014 (307) ELT 787 (Tri.-Del.) to argue that in the said case, it was held that for the supplies made by appellant therein to M/s.ELCOT, the MRP was required to be declared and provisions of Section 4A would be applicable even though the goods are intended for free supply to poorer sections of population of Tamil Nadu on behalf of Government of Tamil Nadu. 29. The Ld. Counsel has put forward arguments on the grounds of limitation also. The show cause notice is dated 08.08.2017. the imports are made during the period 09.05.2012 to 09.06.2014. The facts reveal that the officers have visited the warehouse on 2.7.2013 and 16331 numbers of laptops were seized. The Department was thus aware of the entire situation in 2013 itself. The statements were also recorded in 2013. Thereafter, show cause notice has been issued after 4 years alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of Customs duty inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
