TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the values were mis-declared and issued show cause notice stating that MRP was not declared in the bill of entry. Statements were obtained from one Jithesh, representative of the petitioner as well as from the petitioner. Thereafter the DRI collected 62 documents downloaded from the E-mail ID [email protected] on 30.05.2011 and during investigation it was found that apart from the above mentioned live consignments, M/s.Innobiz Electronic Pvt Ltd., has imported earlier under two bills of entry viz.,457789/15.04.2009 and 281807/21.02.2011 through Tuticorin Port. The petitioner has produced the actual invoice to the DRI officers showing the unit price of model TIC 1001 at USD 9.35 and TIC 6006 at USD 11.78 per piece. The price has been adopted for the purpose of assessment by the DRI officials for live consignment as well for the goods imported as per BE No.2818097/21.02.2011. The DRI fixed the price based on the e-mail document titled "Cookmate Service to me". The DRI had fixed price much higher to the invoice produced by the petitioner. 3.Thereafter, the adjudication was conducted by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and the adjudicating authority by the impugned order in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y an order dated 19.07.2016 accepted the submission of the appellant by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Customs, Bangalore v. Maestro Motors Ltd., [2004 (174) ELT 289 (SC)], and held that Rule 2(a) of General Rules of Interpretation of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature enables the classification 'knocked down' assemblies as the finished goods, which are incorporated in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 specifically finding that goods imported with induction cookers are imported as parts and, being electrical consumer goods are required to be subjected to testing before they can be marketed. Hence the goods are, as yet, not subject to the provisions of Legal Metrology Act 2009 in its imported form. If further found that the imported products are not permitted for sale to the consumer as such without mandatory testing, the classification under the Customs Act, 1975 cannot provide the escapement from Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Goods that are not subject to the prescription of declaring the 'maximum retail price' under Legal Metrology Act, 2009 do not come within the ambit of Section 4 A of Central Excise Act, 1944. With the above findi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, gross injustice would result in non consideration and therefore, the writ petition can be entertained. 8. Mr.R.Aravindan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the department submitted that the petitioner is a Director of M/s.Innobiz Electronics Private Limited, Calicut is not disputed. Further M/s.Innobiz Electronics Private Limited, imported induction stove vide B.E.No. 03579164 dated 23.05.2011 in semi knocked down condition and not spares as declared by them. After due process of law, the Additional Commissioner of Customs vide his order in original dated 45/2012 dated 12.10.2012 has rejected the contention of the petitioner and redetermined the value of goods, demanded differential duty of Rs.12,90,942/- along with interest, confiscated the goods and allowed them to redeem under a fine of Rs.8 lakhs and imposed penalty. Further, they imposed penalty under Sections 114A, 112(a) and 114 AA of Customs Act,1962. Apart from that, a penalty of Rs.5 Lakhs has been imposed on the petitioner, since he has been the Managing Director of M/s. Innobiz Electronics Pvt Ltd. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) in A.No.C24/102/2012-TTN(CUS) vide order dated 21.02....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... file an appeal. 11.Considering the submissions and perusal of the available materials, it is not in dispute that the M/s. Innobiz Electronics Private Ltd has imported induction cookers in the semi knocked down condition and the DRI officers have found the good to be mis-declared and thereafter, an enquiry has been conducted, documents were collected and on collection of documents, it was found that though it has declared as parts of the induction cookers, which were under semi knocked down condition, it is not so. Further, the invoice produced by the petitioner was also found to be improper and the value of the goods were refixed and penalty was demanded. Thereafter, adjudication was held by the adjudicating authorities and penalty was imposed and also goods were confiscated. For the company penalty of Rs.12,90,942/- was imposed and for the Managing Director penalty of Rs.5 lakhs was imposed and for redemption of confiscated goods a fine of Rs.8 lakhs was imposed. Thereafter, the company has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed, against which, the company has preferred an appeal before the CESTAT. In the proceedings before the Commissioner (A....