Page 244 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

682 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

CASES CITED
Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2019 (367) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred ..... [Para 3]
Commissioner v. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd.
— 2019 (365) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on ................................................................................ [Paras 3, 6]
Commissioner v. South India Television (P) Ltd.
— 2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on ..................................................................................... [Para 6]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate, for the Appellant.
S/Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC (AR) and Arul C.
Durairaj, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent.
[Order per : Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)]. - The above stated two
appeals are taken up together for decision, since the issue in both of them is
same.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants have imported certain
spares of automobiles and filed Bills of Entry. In the appeal filed by M/s. Auto
Stores the number of Bills of Entry were 6 and in case of the other appellant the
number of Bills of Entry filed were 7. The said Bills of Entry were filed during the
period from 2011-2012. Accordingly, both the appellants filed a total of 13 Bills of
Entry. It appeared to Revenue that special valuation of the consignments was
required for arriving at the assessable value. Therefore, investigations were taken
up in the year 2011-12. After a gap of around five years, the appellants were is-
sued with Show Cause Notices in 2016. It was stated in the said Show Cause No-
tices that the goods were imported from Dubai, UAE and goods were shipped
from Germany and on scrutiny of documents indicated that no brand name etc.
were mentioned while filing the Bills of Entry and they were suitable for high-
end vehicles. It was stated that the high-end vehicles were such as Audi, BMW,
Benz etc. Further, in para 3.3 of the Show Cause Notice, it was stated that the
value of the parts are definitely to be costlier compared to other car mod-
els/brands and to be precise are beyond comparison with that of unidentifiable
or unbranded goods. In some cases, the manufacturers were from various parts
of the world and the imports were from Dubai. The basic allegation in the Show
Cause Notice was that the appellant had not declared the brand of the goods and
thereby undervalued the goods and therefore there was proposal to enhance the
assessable value of the goods. For the sake of enhancing the value of the goods,
Revenue relied upon one table prepared by them stated to be information based
on Port Load Document and on the basis of such table undervaluation was al-
leged and differential duty was demanded. In the case of M/s. Auto Creaters, the
differential duty demand was Rs. 1.38 crores and in the case of M/s. Auto Stores,
the differential duty demanded was Rs. 80.23 lakhs. On contest, the Show Cause
Notices were adjudicated and Orders-in-Original were passed which are im-
pugned in both the appeals. The adjudicating authority has held that the import-
er did not declare the brand, manufacturers’ detail, country of origin and actual
transaction value of the imported goods in the documents submitted for clear-
ance of the goods and that it was found that the goods were branded and it was
also found that the goods were undervalued when compared with the price data
available in public domain and therefore he has held that the goods were under-
valued by the appellant and he has enhanced the value and confirmed the Cus-
toms duties proposed in both the Show Cause Notices. Further, he has confiscat-
ed the goods and gave option to redeem the same on payment of redemption

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  244