TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty Commissioner, Customs rejected the transaction value and fixed the Assessable Value at Rs. 41,64,494/-. M/s. BEE appealed to Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order in Appeal No. 01/2001, dated 18-1-2001 accepted the Transaction Value declared by M/s. BEE and allowed their appeal. The department preferred an appeal in the CEGAT against that order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which was numbered as C/146/2001. Even when the departmental appeal was pending before the Tribunal, further investigation was carried out. A prayer was made before the Tribunal for permitting to raise additional grounds, in the light of new evidences. However, the Tribunal in its Miscellaneous Order No. 492/2002, dated 12-11-2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd passed the impugned order. In the impugned order the Ball bearings have been valued at Rs. 56,79,032/-. The goods have been confiscated under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, an option has been given to redeem the same on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 38,00,000/- to Sri Rajnish Aggarwal, who is held to be the actual importer. A penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs on Sri Rajnish Aggarwal under Section 114(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been imposed. A penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on M/s. BEE have been imposed under section 112(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs have been imposed on Sri V.K. Singh. The impugned order has been strongly challenged by the appellants. 3. Sri B. Kumar, learned Sr. Advocate app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the court, tribunal or authority below". 2. Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 785 (S.C.), wherein it has been held that "The principle operates as a bar to try the same issue once over. In other words, it aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and accords finality to an issue, which directly and substantially had arisen in the former suit between the same parties or their privies, decided and became final, so that parties are not vexed twice over; vexatious litigation would be put to an end and the valuable time of the Court is saved. It is based on public policy as well as privat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage of finality cannot be reopened to the detriment of assessee unless there are fresh circumstances or judicial pronouncements". 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The Bill of Entry for the impugned goods has been filed by M/s. BEE. The declared value initially was not accepted by the DC. The DC enhanced the declared value. However, the appellants got a favourable order from Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA, dated 18-1-2001. Against this order the Revenue filed appeal to the Tribunal. When the appeal was pending certain new facts had come to the department's notice on account of DRI investigation. Therefore, Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as a miscellaneous application raising add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
