TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....023 passed by the Respondent No. 2 issued on 30.01.2023 (Annexure-D) passed by Respondent No. 2: (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any action against the petitioners pursuant to Order-In-Original No. 23/SJ(23)/PCC(ADJN.)/MUMBAI/2022-23 dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 2 issued on 30.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 2: (C) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of Para 17(B) above may kindly be granted; (D) Any other further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of providing services in relation to import and export of goods. The petitioner is a licensed Customs House Broker and has been functioning as Customs Broker providing services to its clients by filing necessary documents for import and export of goods at Mundra port and various other ports within the territory of India. 4. A show cause notice dated 27.04.2020 was served upon the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al justice by respondent No. 2. It was submitted that respondent No. 2 has failed to consider any of the submissions made by the petitioner in the written submissions while imposing the penalty upon the petitioner in the impugned order. 11. It was pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Dave that learned advocate for the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 on 28.12.2022 and invited the attention of the Court to the record of personal hearing issued by respondent No. 2 at Annexure-C (page 76 of the paper book) to show that learned advocate Mr. Aditya Tripathi appeared for the petitioner and submitted Vakalatnama. It was also recorded that he reiterated his submissions dated 26.12.2022 and 10.12.2022. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submitted that though respondent No. 2 has reproduced the written submissions in para 24.6 (page 129 of the paper book) while considering the levy of penalty, none of the submission is even referred to. 13. It was therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 is without assigning any reason for levy of penalty. Relying upon the following decisions, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice No. 4), M/s. GMC & Co. (Noticee No. 11), M/s S.M. Wairkar (Noticee No. 12) and M/s. Aditya Logistics (Noticee No. 12). He re-iterate the submissions made vide letter dated 16.10.2020. 25.1. Shri Pradeep Sharma, Advocate appeared for PH before the undersigned on 27.12.2022 on behalf of Noticee No. 1, viz. Shri Manoj Kumar Shukla. During the course of PH, he submitted written reply to the SCN vide letter dated 26.12.2022 on behalf of the Noticee No. 1 and re-iterated the submissions depicted therein. The subject written submission is taken on record. 25.2. Shri Rajesh Rawal, Advocate appeared for PH before the undersigned on 27.12.2022 on behalf of Noticee No. 2, viz. Shri Anand Aggarwal. During the course of PH, he submitted written reply to the SCN vide letter dated 26.12.2022 on behalf of the Noticee No. 2 and re-iterated the submissions depicted therein. The subject written submission is taken on record. 25.3. Rest of the nine (09) Noticees did not appeared before the undersigned for PH In spite sufficient opportunities granted to them to appear." 18. It is also pertinent to note that while imposing the levy of penalty though respondent No. 2 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal as to whether the appellant (petitioner herein) should have paid duty on the basis of rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 that is at the rate of 110% of the cost of production or manufacture of excisable goods as claimed by the appellant, or otherwise, they (the petitioner) should have paid duty on the basis of section 4(1)(b) read with rule 9 of the Valuation Rules as contended and confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Thus, the Appellate Commissioner has lost sight of the main contention raised by the petitioner that it is not liable to pay duty either under rule 8 or rule 9 of the Valuation Rules, because the related party has already paid central excise duty on the transaction value of the goods sold by it. The facts reveal that the petitioner had made reference to rule 8 of the Valuation Rules only by way of an alternate submission and the controversy was not as to which of the two rules would apply. The petitioner has also produced before the concerned authorities, documentary evidence to co-relate the sales made by the petitioner to VCL at which point of time, central excise duty was paid on the transaction value, which however, have not been considered by eit....