TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Elan Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (R.E.D.) and its Director Shri Amit Goel are that rejection of declared value in respect of the alcoholic beverages and consequent confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalties are not in conformity with the Customs statute and thus, the impugned order is not legally sustainable. Revenue has assailed the impugned order in respect of the duty demand dropped therein. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants import foreign liquor for sale to Hotels and retail outlets in India. During the relevant period, they imported liquor from two dealers / traders in Dubai. The Customs Department has compared the import prices of the appellants with those of M/s. Delhi Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd. (DDFSPL). I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al foreign exchange repatriation or admission of evasion, the duty demand cannot be fastened beyond the normal period as provided under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. To support such stand, the ld. Advocate has relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur - 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). 3.1 The ld. Advocate further submitted that mere availability of import of identical or similar goods at higher prices is not sufficient for rejecting the transaction value. He has referred to Rule 4 /5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, which deals with 'identical' or 'similar' goods. Thus, he contended that as per Rule 2 (d) of the Valuation Rules, identical goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statutory provisions. With regard to the time bar aspect, the ld. D.R. submitted that since the importer - appellant has mis-declared the value; confirmation of the differential duty demand beyond the normal period is proper and justified. With regard to the appeal filed by Revenue, the ld. D.R. submitted that the SIIB report was furnished with reference to one product only, namely, "Chardonnay Aimery Wine" and only the corresponding demand should have only been allowed, instead of the proposed demand of Rs. 25,93,723/-. 5. Heard both sides and examined the case records. 6. The Bills of Entries, in the present case, were filed by the importer-appellants between the period August' 2009 to February 2013. The provisions for recovery of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest which has not been so levied or which has been so short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice." 7. On a conjoint reading of both sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 28 ibid referred supra, it would reveal that in case of short levy or non-levy of duty, other than the situation involving collusion, wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts, the proper officer shall issue the show cause within a period of one year from the relevant date, calling upon the concerned person to show cause, as to why the duty cannot be recovered from him. However, in exceptional circumstances, where non-levy or short levy of duty is by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the import documents filed before the authorities at the port of import. More importantly, there is no specific allegation that over and above the invoice price, the importer-appellants had paid any additional consideration in respect of the imported goods, other than payments through the approved banking channel. Thus, in such eventuality, the burden of proof of involvement of the ingredients such as, collusion, wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts entirely rests with the Department and it is not for the importer-appellants to establish the contrary. Perusal of the relevant documents available in the case records proves beyond any shadow of doubt that in view of change of opinion by the Department amongst its officers, the show ca....