TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 06.01.2014. 2. The main appellant is engaged in the business of selling furniture, which is partly locally sourced and partly imported from China. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Hyderabad (DRI) conducted an investigation against the appellants on the grounds of under valuation of imported goods during 2008. The appellants did not admit the allegation of undervaluation before the officers of DRI and the Managing Partner of the appellant firm had given retractions against the custodial statements recorded from him. 3. After investigation, DRI issued a show cause notice to the appellants demanding customs duty and proposing penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant approached the Settlement Commission, Chennai for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as they were based on mere presumption and assumptions. It is stated that the averment in the complaint that the Managing Partner had admitted to undervaluation before the officers of DRIis absolutely false and a made-up statement since he had never accepted the undervaluation. The appellant also requested for cross examination of the complainant for framing up a false case but the same was denied. 8. There was no admission of undervaluation even in the application before the Settlement Commission. Filing of application before Settlement Commission is not admission of guilt as held in the case of Bosch Chassis Systems India Ltd vs. CCE, Gurgaon 2008 (232) ELT 622 (Tri-LB). Relevant portion is extracted below for ready reference: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ightly argued that the adjudication proceeding is against the provisions of law. A show cause notice which does not discharge the initial burden of specifying the charges against him and also the evidences relied upon has no legality. The proceedings are to be dropped on this ground alone for want of clarity as to the contraventions alleged and independent evidences relied under FEMA as held in the following cases: (i) In the case of S.K. Mittal vs. ED [2003) 45 SCL 552 (ATFFE -N. DELHI) the Tribunal has held that in the absence of specific finding on the charges, order is to be set aside. (ii) In the case of CCE vs. Brindavan Beverages Ltd, 2007 (213) E.L.T 487 (S.C) the Hon‟ble Apex Court has laid down that "the sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent has not denied the existence of Section 127J of the Customs Act, 1962. It is not denied that such proceedings have not covered rather amendment was incorporated in Section 127 B of the Customs Act. Almost in the similar situation, the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of "Standard Surfactants Ltd. Vs Union of India (UOI)and Ors. on 14th December,2004, in para 17 has held, as under: "17. In my considered view, the most important aspect is the import of the order of the Settlement Commission dt. 4th Sept.,2002. This is so since it is not disputed that this order was never challenged any further and attained finality. That being the position, even the respondents have accepted the said order. It cannot be said....