2024 (6) TMI 717

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s in appeal No.C/20091/2014 would suffice the purpose. In the said case the appellant had filed the Bill of Entry No.9692851 dt. 27.03.2013 (RMS) declaring the goods as Round Ridge Cement Tiles falling under CTH 68101990. Alleging that the said 'cement Tiles' are processed tiles and allowed to be imported free provided the value of the goods is US$ 50 per square meter and above as per Notification No. No.77(RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 09.01.2009 issued under Foreign Trade Policy(2009-14) , and in the present case the value per square meter being US$6.98 and consequently, it is proposed to confiscate the same under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and enhance the value to US$50. The Appellant resisted the said action of the department th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onfiscation under Section 111(d) and equal penalty imposed under Section 114A and penalty of Rs.5 lakhs under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals). Also Revenue has filed appeal against the said order of the adjudicating authority on the ground that while computing the penalty amount, the applicable interest amount was not included. The learned Commissioner(Appeals) rejected their appeal and allowed Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the appellant filed appeal No.C/20562/2015 against rejection of their appeal and appeal No.C/20168/2016 for allowing Revenue's appeal enhancing penalty by including interest components in the penalty amount. 3.1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submitted that interpretation provided by DGFT relating to the Policy is binding on the Customs Department. In support, he has referred to the following judgments: i. Salmag Enterprises Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Adj.), Tuticorin [2021(378) ELT 127 (Mad.)] ii. EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. Vs. CCEUR, Nhava Sheva [2020(374) ELT 807 (Tri. Mumbai)] iii. Casio India Co. Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai [2000(121) ELT 379 (Tri-Delhi)]. 3.2. Further the learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the confirmation of demand in relation to appeal No.C/20562/2015 is irregular inasmuch as the adjudicating authority without finalization of the assessment issued the show-cause notice and later on adjudication confirmed the demand. Thus, it is in contrav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t tiles would not come within the ambit of Notification No.77(RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 09.01.2009. 8. We find that in the impugned orders relating to appeal Nos. C/20091 to 20093/2014, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) did not have the opportunity to examine the said clarification issued by the DGFT after the order was passed, whereas in the subsequent order dated 22.01.2015 before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) the said opinion of the DGFT was placed by the Appellant. However, it was discarded by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) observing that in absence of issuance of any amendment or clarification to the said Notification, the opinion is not binding on the Department. 9. We do not find merit in the said observation of the learned C....