2026 (2) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011. 2. The facts in brief relevant for the adjudication are as follows: 2.1 M/s. Vikas Ecotech Limited, the appellant herein, is holding the Import Export Code issued by Directorate General of Foreign Trade. The appellant filed six Bills of Entry as detailed below: S. No. Bills of Entry No. Dated Assessable Value (in Rs.) 1. 2613501 27.07.2017 1,33,07,592/- 2. 2697771 02.08.2017 1,33,07,592/- 3. 3327231 21.09.2017 1,38,54,620/- 4. 3327266 21.09.2017 1,38,54,620/- 5. 2008619 08.06.2017 1,38,44,234/- 6. 2008504 08.06.2017 1,38,44,234/- 2.2 All these Bills of Entry were filed at ICD, Tughlakabad for clearance of goods declared as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spect to two Bills of Entry as were filed on 09.10.2013 was held to be hit by limitation, show cause notice being issued on 16.10.2018. Hence the demand of Rs.12,22,802/- was dropped. Still being aggrieved the appellant is before this tribunal. 3. I have heard Shri Priyadarshi Manish, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Kuldeep Rawat, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the original copies of Certificate of Origin (COO) were duly verified and goods were allowed clearance by the assessing officers on the basis of Bills of Entry furnished by the appellant. There is no denial of the fact that M/s. Malaysia Smelting Corporation (MSC) has issued the said cert....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e that Notification No.189/2009 has been violated by the appellant and as such the appellant was not eligible for exemption benefit of Notification No. 46/2011. There is sufficient evidence discussed by the original adjudicating authority about the suppression and mis-declaration on part of the appellant. In fact demand for two of the Bills of entry has been dropped on the grounds of imitation. Impressing upon that the adjudicating authority was meticulous and that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the records, I observe that the sole controversy to be adjudicated is about Notification 189/2009 dated 31.12.2009 that is whether Rules....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iff sub-hearing (CTSH) level i.e. at six digit of the Harmonized System: Provided that the final process of manufacture is performed within the territory of the exporting party. 8. The above admission is the sufficient compliance of condition in sub-clause (ii) of this Rule. Sub-clause (i) is alleged to have been violated. I observe that Rule 5(ii) provides the formula for calculating 35% of AFTA content. I do not find anything on record about the calculation of AFTA on record. 9. Further it is observed that there is no evidence about Certificate of Origin to have been fake. Though the verification has revealed that MSC had procured the said certificate based on the wrong cost sheets but the admitted fact remains is that the ....