ADVANCED SCAN SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES Vs. C.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal has been filed against Order -in -Original dated 07.07.2010. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported two CT scanner machines vide Invoice No. 326 dated 22.03.2010 with the following description: - - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_17_LAWS(CE)8_2015.htm</FRM>

(2.) The appellant submitted a letter stating that it accepts the value proposed by Revenue as detention and demurrage charges were adding up and added that neither it wanted any Show Cause Notice to be issued nor it wanted any personal hearing. Accordingly, the Commissioner passed the order assessing the value at Rs. 70,03,969/ - as against 27,51,551/ - declared by the appellant. In addition he also confiscated the goods and allowed redemption on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/ -.

(3.) The appellant has contended that (i) there was no mis -declaration and it had only acceded to the valuation to avoid further detention and demurrage charges and delay. (ii) The Chartered Engineer certificate suggesting the value which was accepted by Revenue was obtained at the back of the appellant. (iii) The principles of natural justice were violated as the Chartered Engineer's certificate was relied upon without offering it opportunity to cross -examine the Chartered Engineer. (iv) The declared value should be accepted and there was no ground available to reject the same. It cited the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Eicher Tractors v/s. Union of India [ : 2000 (122) ELT 321 SC] in support of the said proposition adding that that judgment has been followed by CESTAT like in the case of Metplast India v/s. CC, Nhava Sheva : [2004 (173) ELT 59 (Tri. -Mum)]. (v) Onus was on Revenue to prove the under -valuation, which has not been discharged. (vi) The website relied upon by the Commissioner is an auction website and the value was often changing. (vii) It was not a case for confiscation or imposition of penalty as there was no mala fide or mis -declaration. The appellant cited CESTAT judgment in the case of M/s. Handtex v/s. CC, Raigad, [2008 (226) ELT 665 (Tri. -Del.)].