LAXMI ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PREVENTIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27 th February, 2019 (Annexure A-2 to the memo of this appeal). C.M.No.35300/2019(exemptions) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.35301/2019(delay in re-filing) & C.M.No.35299/2019 (delay in filing) For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in re-filing as well as filing is condoned and the applications are disposed of. CUSAA No.210/2019 & C.M.No.35298/2019 (stay)

(2.) Having heard the counsel for the appellant and looking into the facts and the circumstances of the case, it appears that the show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 11th August, 2016, which mainly related to the under valuation of goods. The appellant imported reflective luminescent film vide Bill of Entry dated 20th July, 2015. Suspecting mis-declaration and undervaluation, investigation was commenced. Under the statements recorded on 17th September, 2015 and 19th January 2016, the son of the proprietor of the appellant and the authorized signatory of the appellant admitted under-valuation and Hawala remittance, and also admitted duty liability for past consignments imported vide Bills of Entry dated 8th March, 2013 and 27th January, 2014. The show cause notice was issued on 11th August 2016, which thereafter culminated in order-in-original of the Commissioner dated 14th June, 2017, rejecting the declared value of clearances affected under 32 Bills of Entry and re-determining the transaction value of the said imports. Differential duty of Rs.1,10,86,061/- was confirmed, along with equal penalty and interest. The seized goods were confiscated with the option to redeem. The appellant preferred an appeal before the CESTAT, which was dismissed, vide order dated 5th February, 2018.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that basically this appeal is challenging the valuation of the goods. So far as this challenge is concerned, the present appeal is not tenable in law before this Court for the following reason: