TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (12) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods, involving suppression of the facts, coupled with the findings of the Commissioner that imported goods were not eligible for benefit of Notfn. Ibid, as such can respondent be absolved of the liability as per the provisions of the Section 28 of the Customs Act? (b)Whether after taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances as stated above, said order of the Commissioner of Customs is legal and proper insofar as he has not confiscated the goods, imported vide Bill of Entry No. 82 dated 26-5-94 even after holding these liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) and that these were not eligible for benefit under exemption Notification No. 34/88-Cus., but still not levied fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112(a) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismissed as infructuous. 6.The revenue filed Customs Act Case No. 51 of 2002 in this Court and pointed out that the subject matter of the appeal was not covered by the payment made by the assessee under the KVSS. This plea was upheld by this Court and it was observed :- "It is, therefore, clear that the declaration filed by the assessee under the KVSS pertained to the duty of Rs. 12,51,783/- only demanded in respect of BE No. 243 dated 19-9-1994. Had the declaration pertaining to both the bills, the disputed demand would have been shown at Rs. 25,43,011/- (Rs. 12,51,783/- + Rs. 12,01,228/-) It is, thus, clear that the declaration pertained only to BE No. 243 dated 19-9-1994 whereby duty of Rs. 12,51,783/- was demanded. Even otherwise, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot pointed out that the goods are to be classified not as "universal measuring instrument" but as "micrometer", then it could only be said a mistake on the part of the Customs Officers and it cannot lead us to conclusion that there has been suppression on the part of the importer (respondent). We find that the assessment was done by the Customs Officers. The goods were also examined by the Customs Officers and they have found that goods as per description given in the invoice. Therefore, if there has been mistake on the part of Customs Officer in proper assessment of the goods, the respondents cannot be held liable for any suppression of facts as they have neither colluded or suppressed the facts. Therefore, the findings of the Commissione....