Page 51 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COURT-ROOM HIGHLIGHTS A25

Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai on 15-11-2019 after condoning the
delay issued notice in Civil Appeal Diary No. 28023 of 2019 filed by Commis-
sioner of Customs, New Delhi ICD TKD Export (Respondent being Balaji Over-
seas) against the CESTAT Final Order Nos. 53248-53250/2018, dated 6-11-2018 as
reported in 2020 (372) E.L.T. 109 (Tri.-Del.) (Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commission-
er).
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the value of
food supplement containing beef imported with paper without declar-
ing/misdeclaring description/value cannot be determined based on the value of
identical goods imported from a different country and applying Rules 3, 4 and 5
of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.
However, the value of food supplements not containing beef has to be deter-
mined under Rule 7 of the said Rules.
The Tribunal had further held that the food supplements containing beef
being prohibited for import is liable to absolute confiscation. However, the food
items not containing beef when imported by misdeclaring value and description
is liable to confiscation with option to redemption on payment of duty.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr.
P.V. Yogeshwaran and Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocates, for
the Appellant.

(1) Valuation (Central Excise) — Statement of buyer and
co-accused not presented for cross-examination,
whether can be basis for undervaluation?
(2) Demand — Excess consumption of one of raw materials
whether can be ground to allege excess manufacture
and removal of goods when there is no evidence of
excess receipt of other raw materials?

(3) Demand — Clandestine removal of goods — Parallel
invoices having different format than that of as-
sessee’s invoice, whether reliable in absence of any
corroborative evidence?
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandra-
chud and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy on 6-1-2020 after condoning the
delay issued notice in Civil Appeal Diary No. 41727 of 2019 filed by Commis-
sioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara-II against the CESTAT Final
Order No. A/11030/2019-WZB/AHD, dated 28-6-2019 as reported in 2020 (372)
E.L.T. 121 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (Shri Krishna Industries v. Commissioner). While issuing
the notice, the Supreme Court passed the following order :
“Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 3133-3135 of 2018.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the charge
of undervaluation of goods solely based on the statement of buyers who were

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  99