2026 (9) TMI 304

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ported goods. 2. The brief facts are the Appellant is importing Liquefied Propane, Liquefied Butane and Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG). Alleging undervaluation of goods imported for the period from October 2011 to December 2013, investigation commenced and show cause notice was issued on 16.06.2015. Thereafter Adjudication authority as per the impugned order dated 25.04.2016 rejected the declared value and loaded the value and confirmed the differential duty demand along with interest and also imposed penalties under various provisions of Finance Act, 1944. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in relation to inclusion of 'demurrage....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....intention to evade payment of duty. b. that the inclusion of freight of the daughter vessel, the method has been prescribed by the Board and the same is binding on the Departmental Officers. c. where World Scale Rates are available only those rates are to be applied and an alternative method can be used only where such rates are not available. d. that the duty liability has to be re-worked in accordance with the WSO rates and that demand made on the basis of some other calculation is not sustainable. e. The matter was remanded for the calculation of differential duty in terms of the Circular, further penalty was set-aside. 4. Pursuant to the said remand order of this Hon'ble Tribunal, the Departmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tutes suppression attracting provisions of extended period of limitation. Further submits that on the same set of facts, another show cause notice (SCN) was issued and following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise -[2006 (197) ELT 465 (S. C.)] the demand is unsustainable. In this regard reliance is also placed on the following decisions:- (i) Markfed Refined Oil & Allied Indus. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2008 (229) ELT 557 (Tri.-Del.) as upheld by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide decision reported in 2009 (243) ELT A91 (P&H.) (ii) Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 20....