2026 (3) TMI 996

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts M/s. Multitek Engineers & Mr. Tukaram Rao Devraja For the other Appellants : None For the Respondent : Mr. M. Sreekanth, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER : DR. D.M. MISRA : These appeals are filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 431 to 433/2013 CUS(B) dated 21.11.2013 and Order-in-Appeal No. 434 to 437/2013 CUS(B) dated 25.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of intelligence that the appellant M/s. Multitek Engineers, a proprietorship concern and its proprietor Shri Tukaram Rao Devaraja, imported rubber belts and PVC conveyors for textile, granite, printing and other industrial consumers from overseas suppliers situated in Chin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 which were retracted. These statements cannot be relied upon as the Department has not followed the provisions of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962. Besides, the statements of co-accused cannot be relied upon without sufficient corroboration. Also, he has submitted that there is no evidentiary value of the statements in absence of an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are relied upon in passing the order. Further, he has submitted that statements recorded by the Enforcement Directorate under FEMA, 1999 cannot be relied upon to establish the present case for undervaluation which is alleged to be in contravention to provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lenging the assessment orders, the demand could not be raised. Further, he has submitted that major portion of the demand is barred by limitation and in absence of proper evidence regarding under valuation of the goods and confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained. 3.2. On behalf of the appellants M/s. Light N Sough Forex Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ratan Das, the learned advocate on record has submitted written submissions, wherein it is submitted that in the show-cause notice, it is alleged that M/s. Multitek Engineers has handed over the undervalued amount to Mr. Sanjeev Yadav of M/s. Sivam Forex Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, which in turn required to be paid to the foreign supplier in Indian currency equivalent to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mills Company Ltd. & anr. Vs. UOI & anr. [1986(26) ELT 931 (Bom.)]. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner(Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The short question involved in the present case is whether the goods imported by the appellant viz. rubber belts and PVC conveyors which are used for textile, granite, printing and other industrial applications had been undervalued? 7. On going through the orders of the learned Commissioner(Appeals), we find that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has simply upheld the finding of the adjudicating authority instead of analysing the issues in detail. The adjudicating authority in the respective orders enclosed along with t....