2023 (8) TMI 1055

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....antpur L.C.S. from Bangladesh, during the period 17.03.2012 to 31.10.2014 . As the product was subject to levy of Additional duty of Customs (CVD) on MRP basis, the Appellant asked the exporter from Bangladesh to print the MRP on the bags. 2. The Appellant was issued with two Show Cause Notices dated 26.11.2014 and 22.01.2015 alleging that he has evaded Additional duty of customs amounting to Rs. 8,51,776/- and Rs.65,521/- respectively, by way of undervaluation in as much as cement from the same manufacturer in Bangladesh imported through Agartala L.C.S. was having a higher MRP of Rs. 320/- per bag of 50 Kg. 3. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 17.08.2015 and 09.10.2015 respectively, confirmed the demand of duty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....through different ports under different MRP were sold at the same price. Thus, they contended that the authority has erred in observing different prices printed on different consignments as one and the same. In absence of any evidence that the goods were being sold at a higher price than MRP, allegation of undervaluation for the purpose of levy of CVD is unfounded and not tenable under law. 6. The Appellant contended that the impugned Bills of Entry duly selfassessed were not challenged by the department and hence became final. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Ltd, unless the original Assessment by the assessing officer is challenged, the department cannot demand differential duty subsequently by issuing a demand N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng sold at same price. Hence, the price difference cannot be attributed to suppression of the value by the Appellant. Accordingly, we hold that the demand is not sustainable. 10. We observe that the self-assessment of the Bills of Entry by the importer was not challenged by the department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Ltd, has held as under: 47. When we consider the overall effect of the provisions prior to amendment and post-amendment under Finance Act, 2011, we are of the opinion that the claim for refund cannot be entertained unless the order of assessment or self-assessment is modified in accordance with law by taking recourse to the appropriate proceedings and it would not be within the ken of Section 27 to ....