TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd., (with the consent of both parties) is allowed, as the appeal has been filed more than a decade before and the department is also pressuring the appellant for recovery. 2. In the result, the miscellaneous application for early hearing is allowed. On merit 3. We have heard both the parties on merit. Learned Counsel representing the appellants has not raised any objection as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mangali Impex v. Union of India [2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.) regarding issuance of show-cause notice by DRI. 3. All the appeals are filed against order-in-original No.191/2009-10/CC(I), JNCH dated 30.03.2010. 4. Brief facts of the cases are that in 2006, M/s Dee Vee Me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statement was retracted. There is no evidence that any amount over and above the invoice valuation have been made to the seller or the buyer. The same fact has not been mentioned in the impugned order or in the show-cause notice. The valuation shown in the invoices is matching with the value mentioned in the Metal Bulletin of 14.11.2005. So he made a request that the penalty imposed on the appellant be set aside and that enhancement value are against law. Finally he requests the impugned order be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Vinitha Sekhar, learned A.R. appearing on behalf of the department justified the impugned order. 8. Learned A.R submits that Shri Sharad Agarwal, partner of M/s Unimet Inc, and Shri Niraj Sharma, Propriet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e shown by the importer and seller on transaction in non ferrous scraps. Shri Dileep Dugar has deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs and Shri Ramesh Agarwal has deposited a sum of Rs. Rs. 5,65,550/- in response to the notice sent by DRI but later both the parties have retracted their statements and alleged that the statement was extracted under duress and threat, not only of arrest but also of summoning the members of the family. The same was submitted before the adjudicating authority. 10. When all the parties retracted their earlier statement then the same cannot be relied on. The amount paid under threat and duress cannot be accepted as acceptance of guilt on the part of the appellants. From the learned Counsel s submission it appears that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t merely the invoice price. On a plain reading of Section 14(1) and Section 14(1A), it envisages that the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty has to be deemed price as referred to Section 14(1). Therefore, determination of such price has to be in accordance with the relevant rules and subject to the provision of Section 14(1). It is made clear that these provisions are not mutually exclusive. Therefore Rule 4 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. Section 14 (1) speaks of deemed value. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC v. South India Television (P) Ltd. - 2007 (214) ELT 3 (SC) held that for proving under-valuation, if the depart....