TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2th June 2003 and 20th September 2005 and consequent to which duty liability of Rs. 44,66,124 and Rs. 98,48,522 respectively were fastened on M/s Padma Ceramics Pvt Ltd and M/s RAS International under section under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 in order [order-in-original no. 27 & 28/2013/CAC/CC(G)/PKA-CFS(M)(I) dated 22nd February 2013] of Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. In addition, the goods were held as liable for confiscation under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962, besides penalty of like amount imposed under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 on the respective importers, penalties of Rs. 10,00,000 and Rs. 20,00,000 under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 were imposed on Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Director in M/s Padma Ceramics....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08-CE (NT) dated 1st March 2008], no authority was vested with central excise officers for re-determination of value. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Century Tiles Ltd and Ganpatlal Dayalal Patel v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad - III [2025 (1) TMI 64 -CESTAT AHMEDABAD], in Suzuki Ceramics v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot [2016 (334) ELT 169 (Tri. -Ahmd)] and in Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Citizen Ceramic [2016 (339) ELT 105 (Tri.-Ahmd)]. It was further submitted, that, even 'post-2008', the mechanism for re-determination, either at the stage of import under section 17 of Customs Act, 1962, or subsequently, within the scope of section 28 of Custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bject to valuation in accordance with section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. In consequence, for the purpose of section 3(1) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, they are to be re-assessed on the value of 'retail selling price' marked on the packages. It is admitted that the imported goods did not bear any such markings. It is the claim of the appellant that the goods had been sold to builders and, from the records it is not evident that this claim has not been controverted. On the other hand, at the time of investigations and issue of show cause notice on 10th June 2008, the appellant had been disposing off ceramic tiles in the market through persons other than builders. The appellant have not shown any evidence that this was not the practice ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pose of assessment which draws upon 'value' in section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. Likewise, section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 is liable to be invoked only for the limited purpose of declaration of value to the extent that the value for assessment of any duties did have recourse to section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 as is evident from section 2(41) of Customs Act, 1962. Re-determination of value under any other provision would not justify invoking of section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. 7. It is evident from the decision of the Tribunal, in re Ocean Ceramics, that central excise officers themselves were not vested with the power to re-determine 'retail selling price' during the relevant period and, yet, the impugned order has held that ....