2009 (10) TMI 757

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER These are two Appeals against a common impugned Order dated 11-4-2005 & 20-4-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. 2. Relevant facts in brief are that the Appellants imported 3 consignments of Xmas Lights and filed bills of entry for clearance of the same. The first consignment was cleared after nominal increase of the declared assessa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies, without prejudice to their rights, and they sought for finalization of the prices declared by them and sought refund of the excess duty paid. The Appellants were heard in person on 23-2-2005. The Commissioner finalized the assessment, confirmed the differential duty amounting to Rs. 5,09,851.00 which already stood paid by them. As the goods were already released, he held that the goods were l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oprietory Concern are not justified. Further, he submits that when there was enhancement of prices which were accepted by the Appellants, there was no justification for subsequent enhancement that too without disclosing the basis for such enhancement. 4. Learned S.D.R. submits that the Appellants have clearly admitted the enhancement of the assessable value. They have also waived the issuance o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vidence collected, after revealing the same to them. It was the contention of the learned Advocate that after the provisional assessment was made, no statement was recorded from them disclosing the outcome of any enquiry. It was also his contention that the payment of duty based on the second enhancement was without prejudice to their rights. These submissions are relevant and require to be taken ....