TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (9) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 6,31,408/-, along with penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh, while two others are aggrieved only against penalties of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-respectively imposed. In the bunch of appeals C/893/01 to 896/01 filed by Milton Plastics Ltd, B.I. Vaghyani, Chairman of Milton Plastics Ltd, D.I. Gaghani and C.I. Vaghani, Directors of Milton Plastics, duty demand of Rs. 23,19,881/- and penalties have been imposed of Rs. 5.00 lakhs on the firm and Rs. 2.00 lakhs each on others. 3. The issue involved is valuation of goods imported and the issue being common, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 4. The appellants are regular importers of various plastic granules required for manufacture of plastic insulated product....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....$ 855; (iii) 212.375 MT assessed at enhanced value of US $ 855 pmt. 6. The department therefore appears to have accepted the value of US $ 830 PMT declared by the appellant in respect of 225 MT of polypropylene granules. However, in respect of balance 255 MT, the declared value was rejected at the time of assessment of Bill of Entry and was raised to US $ 855 per MT as per Order No. S/26-560/95-SIIB. 7. In this background, a Show Cause Notice dated 7-6-2000 was issued. The Notice sought to adopt the value at each import mode by M/s. Cello Plast and M/s. Win Plast, Daman. The details of their imports have been given in paras 12 and 13 of the Notice and the valuation was proposed to be enhanced to US$ 1059. Copi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules, has not been invoked. The notice proposed to invoke Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 for demanding duty based on import of similar goods, while the order confirms the duty by invoking Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. On this ground it can be held that the order had traversed beyond the Show Cause Notice. 10. Rule 6 will have no application in the present case, as the imports in the present case were from Belgium. The department relies on imports by two other importers who have imported the goods from Israel. The goods imported from different countries cannot be goods similar, as per Rule 6(b) and hence that provision cannot be invoked. Rule 6 applicable for simil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under import which was mentioned in the invoice of M.B. Barter & Co. Hence the price paid for the goods under import would constitute transaction value in terms of Rule 4 which has to be accepted. There is no evidence or any other amount having been paid, thus the value proposed cannot be upheld. 13. We find that the plea of limitation raised by the appellant is also a valid plea in the present proceedings. The sole basis for demanding duty in the Notice is based on the imports of similar goods by others. In the present case, at the time of assessment, a major part of the consignment, transaction value has been accepted and for certain imports of lesser quantity, the declared value was rejected and the department applied itself and....