Intrade Impex Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise

ORDER %

24.10.2011 TheseappealsunderSection130 ofthe CustomsAct, 1962 (Act, for short) are directed against the order dated 1^' September, 2010 disposingof the stay applicationfiled by the appellantsand the order dated 19"' September,2011 dismissingthe rectification/modification applicationfiled by the appellants.

¶2By the impugned order dated 1^' September, 2010, the Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. ,1 %' appellants' applications for stay were partly allowed and the appellants were directed to deposit 50% of the customs duty as demanded by the under challange order passed by the Commissioner.

¶3It is stated at the Bar that the goods in question were imported in 2001-2003 and the total principal amount as per the order under challenge before the tribunal is Rs. 8.45 crores and Rs.8.69 crores in Intrade Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Alcay Cones Pvt. Ltd. In addition, a penalty of equal amount has been levied and the appellantsare also liable to pay interest. Penalty and interest have been completely waived.

¶4Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the tribunal has failed to consider several aspects which were relevant and materialfor disposalof the stay applicationand in this connectionhe has drawn our attention to the application for rectification/modification, which has been disposed of by order dated 19"' September, 20IL He submits that there are about 60 Bills of Entries,which were made subjectmatterof the show causenotice,but the Revenue did not supply copy of 17 Bill of entries. He further submitsthat in respectof two otherBills of Entries,the appellantshad pleadedand submittedthat in one case, the paymenthad been made at a highervalue and in the secondcase departmenthad not acceptedthe valuation and the matter was decided by the tribunal. It is urged that there has been violation of principle of natural justice as the tribunal has taken into consideration certain aspects mentioned in the records, though appellants have not inspected the records.

¶5We have considered the aforesaid contentions. The tribunal in its order dated September, 2010 has gone into great depth and detail and examined the allegations against the appellants,the material which was collected by the Revenue to show that it a case of "under invoicing" of imports,which were actuallymanufacturedand sold by companiesin USA and Belgium,but were shown as importedthrough traders from Singapore,Taiwan etc. The tribunal has referredto the evidence and material which has been relied upon by the authorities to justifyand establishthat in the presentcases, customsduty was short levied to the extent of Rs.8.47 and Rs.8.67 crores because of the failure andmaladroitconductof the appellantsin "under invoicing"the goods. The tribunal has referred to the sale price/invoicing of the domestic customers/buyers.

¶6We have also considered the contention of the appellants with regard to the so called lapses, lacuna and violation of principlesof naturaljustice. Thequestionrelatingto Bill of Entriesand photocopies thereof is one aspect but importby the appellantsand value declared can be established from other documents. The Revenue has submitted that the tribunal can examinerecordsfor their personal satisfaction.We L do not think that the said aspects, justify interference by this Court in an appeal under Section 130 of the Act. The tribunal has substantially waived and has asked the appellants to deposit 50% of the customs duty. Penalty and interest have been completely waived. The waiver is substantial. substantial question of law arises or requires consideration and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. It is clarified that the observations made above will not be binding on the tribunal. No prayer for extension of time to make payment is made.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

G.P. MITTAL, J. OCTOBER 24, 2011 NA /

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CUSAA 45/2011 INTRADE IMPEX PVT. LTD Through CUSAA 46/2011 AKAY CONES PVT. LTD. Through versus Appellant Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Mr. Navneet Panwar and Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondent Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Standing Counsel. Appellant Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Mr. Navneet Panwar and Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advs. /I COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondent Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL