2025 (10) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....particular, on behalf of M/s Ankul Agrotech Pvt Ltd, the appellant herein, before Commissioner of Customs (NS-I), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House (JNCH), Nhava Sheva in proceedings for recovery of duty of Rs. 64,51,541, short-paid at the time of clearance of impugned goods valued at Rs. 91,70,065, against bills of entry no. 3952467/15.05.2021, no. 6915748/01.01.2022 and no. 7410606/08.02.2022 under section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962 and for re-assessment of bill of entry no. 7529346/17.02.2022 for duty liability on goods valued at Rs. 28,27,894 under section 17(4) of Customs Act, 1962. In determination of the charges, the adjudicating authority was not persuaded that grape can turn only into raisin and the impugned order [order-in-original n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It is seen from the records that before the adjudicating authority, and now echoed among other submissions of Learned Counsel for appellant before us, that classification as 'raisin' was claimed on behalf of the appellant. While the equivalence of the effective rate with duty liability claimed at the time of import may have prompted the revision with intent to deflect confiscation and penalty from 'no tax effect', we must, nevertheless hold that the declared classification was inappropriate both by reason of admission thus and by the more obvious disparateness of the 'dried' variant presented from the 'fresh' intended in the description. That misdeclaration could not, by any stretch, be manifest of erroneous interpretation as far as the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or confiscation and penalty. 6. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative who took us through the findings in the impugned order and various technical inputs. He relied upon Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - III v. Uni Products Ltd [2020 (372) ELT 465 (SC)] and Commissioner of Commercial Tax, UP v. AR Thermosets (Pvt) Ltd [2016 (339) ELT 500 (SC)]. 7. The impugned order has disposed off the submissions of the appellant thus '16.4. I find that, the Noticees- have placed reliance on a report of Comptroller and Auditor General of India no. 01/2017 with specific mention to Para 6.6. On careful reading of the said report, I find that the highlighted commodity in the said report is "small dried black grapes" that were r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ced, I am of the opinion that the Advance Ruling submitted by the noticees shall be binding only on the applicant and on the concerned jurisdictional officer or his subordinate officers, in respect of the specific applies.' 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Hindustan Ferodo Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise [1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC)], it was held that 'It is not in dispute before us as it cannot be, that onus of establishing that the said rings fell within Item No. 22-F lay upon the Revenue. The Revenue led no evidence. The onus was not discharged. Assuming therefore, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the evidence that was produced on behalf of the appellants, the appeal should, nonetheless, have been allowed.' and ....