CONNECTRONICS AND CABLES PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION), MUMBAI
LAWS(SC)-2015-9-134
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 02,2015

Connectronics And Cables Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE Appellant -Assessee herein had imported certain goods from time to time and had cleared the same after paying customs duty. In the Bill of Entries for import of these various goods, certain values were declared. There was search in the premises of the Appellant and others connected with the Appellant by the Revenue wherein various incriminating documents were seized by the Department. On scrutiny of these documents, the Revenue found that the Assessee was clearing the goods by mentioning lesser value of those goods and, therefore, as per the Revenue, it was the case of undervaluation which resulted in the lesser payment of custom duty.
(2.) SHOW Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant pertaining to various goods in respect of which four charts, viz., Charts A, B, C and D, were prepared and in these charts the details of the goods imported from time to time were given. The Assessee replied to this Show Cause Notice. Ultimately, the Commissioner passed the order confirming the demand in respect of Charts A and B. As far as Chart C was concerned, the demand in respect thereof was also confirmed but it related to M/s. Instronics Ltd. The demand in respect of Chart D was dropped by the Commissioner. M/s. Instronics did not file any appeal and, therefore, demand in respect of Chart C became final. The Assessee filed appeal in respect of Charts A and B. This appeal has been dismissed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT'). The Revenue also filed appeal against the order of the Commissioner insofar as it related to dropping of the demand pertaining to Chart D. In that appeal, the CESTAT has remitted the case to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication on certain grounds, as would be noted hereinafter.
(3.) THE Assessee, in these circumstances, filed appeal against the order of the CESTAT. However, this Court admitted the appeal only in respect of goods described in Chart D. Therefore, we are concerned with the validity of the order passed by the CESTAT relating to Chart D alone.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.