2025 (10) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....two show cause notices both dated 05.11.2014 alleging that he has evaded additional duties of customs amounting to Rs. 12,113/- and Rs. 72,677/- respectively by way of undervaluation in as much as cement from the same manufacturer in Bangladesh imported through Agartala, Land Customs Station (LCS, for short) was having a higher MRP of Rs. 320/- per bag of 50 kg. 3. The Adjudicating Authority by the orders-in-original both dt. 06.10.2015, confirmed the demands and imposed equal amount of duty as penalty. 4. Challenging the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Guwahati, on the ground that the impugned Bills of Entry duly which were self-assessed, were not challenged by the department, and hence they bec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... We observe that different lots of the impugned goods were imported by different importers through different land ports though the goods were manufactured by the same manufacturer in Bangladesh. The Appellant stated that the MRP printed on the goods imported through other ports can be different as the Place of importation itself was different and hence difference in MRP is quite natural. We observe that MRP on the same item is decided in consideration of a number of factors besides landing cost and duty element. In the instant case the goods were imported through different ports. That itself is a valid reason for the difference in price. There is no evidence to suggest that the goods so imported through different ports under different MRP ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(i) Whether CESTAT, Kolkata has wrongly interpreted the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment of ITC Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata IV, 2019 (368) ELT 216 (SC)? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT is perverse and suffers from illegality in view to the Explanation to the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975?" 9. The judgment of the Supreme Court in ITC specifically lays down that the self-assessment of the Bills of Entry by the importer has to be challenged by the department and it should be got modified under Section 128 or under other relevant provisions of the Act., if not the same has to be accepted by the department. 10. The learned Tribunal had....