TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed marble slabs. The following quantity was declared in the invoice : Table-A Invoice No. YM20170115C dated 15.01.2017. Value USD 89500.00 (Rs. 6253264.52) Customs duty Rs. 17,62,842/- Container No. Description of the goods Packages Pieces SQM Gross Weight (Kg.) DFSU 1426870 Polished Marble Slabs 7 130 285.000 26240 DFSU 2149912 Polished Marble Slabs 7 81 210.000 25300 DFSU 2008637 Polished Marble Slabs 1 58 63.000 23300 DFSU 2206798 Polished Marble Slabs 7 102 233.000 23300 DFSU 2008637 Polished Marble Slabs 9 92 242.000 24100 TGHU 1194016 Polished Marble Slabs 7 92 228.000 23100 LLTU 2068409 Polished Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 11(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Apart from that redemption fine amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs was also imposed. The demand of duty was also made on the revised quantity as per the Punchnama of the Revenue. 2.2 Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the entire case is based on assumption and presumption. He argued that the physical verification of imported goods was not done by industry experts. He pointed out that although representative importers were present at the time of punchnama but still the measurement should have been done by an expert of the industry. Learned counsel pointed out that the measurement in case of Marble Slab is done after packing in the rough edges as well as the cracks in the slabs. 3. Lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e number of units. 5. In this case no show cause notice was issued as the appellant had requested vide letter dated 02.03.2017 for release of seized goods immediately without issue of show cause notice and without holding personal hearing. The importer had indicated that he is ready to pay up duty, fine and penalty imposed in this regard. Consequently, the order-in-original was passed without grant of personal hearing. We find that the Principal Bench in the case of Vikas Spinners 2001 (128) ELT 143 has observed that once the assessee accepts the objection raised at the time of assessment without demur he cannot later challenge assessment. In para 7 following has been observed: 7. In our view in the present appeal, the question ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as determined in the presence of their Representative/Special Attorney and paid the duty thereon accordingly. Similarly in case of Aggarwal Traders 2023 (384) ELT 700 following has been observed: "23. In this connection, it would also be useful to refer to a decision of this Tribunal in Advanced Scan Support Technologies v. Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur [2015 (326) E.L.T. 185 (Tri. - Del.)], wherein the Tribunal, after making reference to the decisions of the Tribunal in Vikas Spinners v. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow [2001 (128) E.L.T. 143 (Tri. - Del.)] and Guardian Plasticote Ltd. v. CC (Port), Kolkata [2008 (223) E.L.T. 605 (Tri. - Kol.)], held that as the appellant therein had expressly given consent to the value pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consented, the violation of principles of natural justice cannot be alleged. In the present case, while value can be challenged but such a challenge would be of no avail as with the goods not being available and valuation earlier having been consented, the onus will be on the appellant to establish that the valuation as per his consent suffered from fatal infirmity and such onus has not been discharged. Further, valuation of such goods requires their physical inspection and so re-assessment of value in the absence of goods will not be possible. The case of Eicher Tractors v. Union of India (supra) cited by the appellant is not relevant here as in that case there was no evidence that the assessee had consented to enhancement of value." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be taken by them only if they had contested the loaded value at the time when it was done, but not now after having voluntarily accepted the correctness of loaded value of the goods as determined in the presence of their Representative/Special Attorney and paid the duty thereon accordingly." (Emphasis supplied) 25. In Guardian Plasticote Ltd., the Tribunal after placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Vikas Spinners, had also observed as follows : "4.The Learned Advocate also cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vikas Spinners v. C.C., Lucknow - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 143 (Tri. - Del.) in support of his arguments. We find that the said decision clearly holds that enhanced value once set....