TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Act, 1962 [the Customs Act] by resorting to invocation of the extended period of limitation as contemplated under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act. 2. It transpires from the records that the appellant imported 17 consignments of ball valves/cartridges and submitted Bills of Entry in the Year 2007-08. The goods were cleared by the proper officer of customs after examination of the goods and after accepting the value declared by the appellant. After the lapse of about three years from the date of first import, the department searched the company premises of the appellant on 16.04.2011 and resumed goods and documents. 3. The show cause notice dated 31.03.2011 was thereafter issued to the appellant proposing to reject the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue and re-determining it under Rule 8 of the 2007 Valuation Rules. Learned counsel also submitted that the extended period of limitation, in the facts of the circumstances of the case, could not have been invoked. 7. Shri M.K. Shukla, learned authorized representative appearing for the department however supported the impugned order and submitted that not only was the Commissioner justified in rejecting the transaction value and re-determining it, but was also justified in invoking the extended period of limitation. 8. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered. 9. It would first be appropriate to examine whether the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an the actual transaction value. Because, whatsoever be the savings on labour cost, a manufactured product cannot be available at a cost price lower than the value of either the scrap (i.e. Tariff Value of brass scrap) or the international trading price of the base metal ie (LME price of zinc). 19.2 It appears that in all the cases, since the invoices submitted by the said firm at the time of its import into India were false invoices and as the same had been raised to show the lower value by the importer, the value shown in the said invoices is liable to be rejected under Rule 12(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007 in as much as the value/ price shown/ declared by the importer, of the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty, as applicable, under Section 28AB of the Act." 12. The appellant has submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice and in respect of the allegation relating to invocation of the extended period of limitation stated: "4.1 The present Show Cause Notice has been issued on 31.03.2011 in respect of goods imported in May 2007 to January, 2009 and the only reason ascribed for leveling the charge of undervaluation and consequent short levy of duty as stated in the para 19.1 of the Show Cause Notice is that "whatsoever be the savings on labour costs, a manufactured product cannot be available at a cost price lower than the value of either the scrap (i.e. Traiff value of brass scrap) or international trading price of the base....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect that the appellant after having made up his mind of paying duty backed off is based to the statement made by the appellant under section 108 of the Customs Act. This statement of the appellant cannot be considered as relevant in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Surya Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Raipur [Excise Appeal No. 51148 of 2020 decided on 01.04.2025] 15. Even otherwise, mere undervaluation of goods cannot be a ground to invoke the extended period of limitation unless the department brings on record relevant material to show that undervaluation was with an intent to evade payment of duty. The Commissioner has not recorded any reason as to why the appellant had any intention to evade p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d suppressed the material facts and had contravened the provisions of the Act with an intent to evade service tax. Thus, the main question to be addressed is whether the allegation that MTNL had suppressed material facts for evading its tax liability, is sustainable." ***** 41. In the facts of this case, the impugned show cause notice does not disclose any material that could suggest that MTNL had knowingly and with a deliberate intent to evade the service tax, which it was aware would be leviable, suppressed the fact of receipt of consideration for rendering any taxable service. On the contrary, the statements of the officials of MTNL, relied upon by the respondents, clearly indicate that they were under the belief that t....