TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 31.03.2003 as amended. It is case of the department that appellants have mis-declared the weight of imported rough A marble blocks at the time of import. Further, it is also alleged by declaring the lesser weight, appellants have also violated the policy circular No. 13(RE-08)/2004-2009 dated 30.06.2008 as excess quantity/weight is not covered by the procurement certificate issued in terms of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. Aggrieved by the order in appeal confirming duties and penalties as below, appellants have filed the present appeal. Sr. No Impugned Order No. Passed by Dated Duty Demand/ Penalty/fine (Rs) 1. Order-in-Appeal No.KDL-CUSTM-000- APP-350-14-15 Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad 19.06.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....criteria: (a) Units who have installed marble gang saw machine (except 100% EQU's, units in SEZ and units who have been granted marble block import licences under previous licensing years or are eligible to avail licence in the current licensing year (2008-09) under SIL category). 2.2 It was submitted that in terms of para 6.3.7 of Hand book of procedure. 2005-09, LoP/LOI issued by Development Commissioner would be authorisation for all purposes. Thus, the FTP restrictions would not be applicable for EOU if imported goods are falling under LOP issued by Development commissioner. Para 6.3.7 of HBP is extracted and reproduced as under: 6.3.7 LoP/Lol issued to EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units by concerned authority would be construed as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sheva-I 2017 (356) E.L.T. 121 (Tri.- Mumbai) • Geetanjali Woollens Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Export), Mumbai 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1192 (Tri.- Mumbai) 5. Learned AR seeks to rely on the order of lower authority and justifies the imposition of penalty as well as demand of duty as excess quantity as per the record of CHA was found to have been sent to the EOU. 6. Considered the adversarial submissions, it is found that the department has made out a case of excess receipt of weight and clearance of same from the premises of EOU on the basis of various documents maintained by CHA including their registers like arrival/dispatch book , LR book and transfer registers for the period 2007 to 2009. On detail examination of such re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llegedly received by the EOU was eventually disposed of, the ratio of the decision of Paras Fab International v. CCE, Kandla reported in 2010 (256) ELT 556 (Tri.- LB.) holding that in the absence of proof of imported goods having been cleared demand of duty cannot be sustained, will apply to the facts of the case also. Similar is the ratio, in the matter of Eurotex Industries & Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner reported in 2017 (345) ELT 532 (Tri- Mumbai), whether, it has been held that any material received is used in manufacturing in EOU, then the same cannot be subjected to duty. Further, we find the trade practice mentioned by the appellant has been duly considered in 2005 (192) ELT 950 (Tri.- Mumbai) in the matter of TOPAIM INDUSTRIES PVT.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....613774 remains as 65.24 MTs in spite of ascertained weight to be less than Gross Weight as declared; no reason or/& relationship of a mathematical Formula to Gross weight and chargeable weight being established, the proposed to levy duty on values arrived by multiplying per MT the chargeable Rate price with ascertained weight cannot be upheld. If a Baker sells Hot Cross Buns at Rs. 12 to a dozen, then for the thirteenth Bun put on the Basket as Bakers Dozen understood in that Trade cannot call for the Bakers Dozen to be valued at Rs. 13, (misdeclarations called for, as also to demand duty ad valorem pro rata on thirteen Buns price of Rs. 13. However, the situation would be different if the rate of duty is specific and per Bun, then duty wil....