M/s. Namrata Enterprises vs C.C. (Jodhpur)

ROM application has been filed in terms of Final Order No. 52806 dated 4.7.2014. The appellants have made a prayer to dispose of the ROM on

the basis of their grounds taken in the application. Accordingly, we have heard Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue.

As per the facts on records, the appellants imported used tyres with and without metallic frame. The mis-declaration as regards quantum of the

tyres as also value of the same was noticed by the Revenue on the basis of which proceedings were initiated against them, resulting in enhancing the

value, confiscating the goods and imposing penalties. The said penalty

On appeal against the order of original adjudicating authority, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the charge of under-valuation in respect of used

tyres with metallic frames. However, upheld the under valuation of tyres without metallic frames and the mis-declaration in quantum as also the

findings of policy valuation. The Redemption fine (RF) was reduced to Rs.1.75 Lakhs and penalty was reduced to Rs.25,000/- for valuation of policy

and reduced the penalty to Rs.50,000 for mis-declaration in quantity of value. was also imposed on the ground of policy violation as the appellant was

not having valid license of import the goods.

The said order of Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged before the Tribunal vide its final order dated 4.7.2014, the under valuation of tyres

without metallic frames was set aside. However, it seems that as there was no challenge to the mis-declaration in quantum and policy violation, the

said findings were upheld.

The appellants grievance is that with the setting aside of enhancement of valuation, the Tribunal should have given further relief in RF and Penalty,

whereas there is no discussion by the Tribunal as regards the quantum of RF and Penalty.

On going through the final order No. 52806 dated 4.7.2014, we find the above averments made by the appellant, to be correct. By setting aside the

undervaluation aspect, the Tribunal observed that appeal is allowed to that extent, without adverting to the quantum of RF and Penalty.

Accordingly, we allow the ROM and proceed to decide the quantum of RF and Penalty.

On being questioned, Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has not been able to give us exact differential duty amount in respect of the

undervaluation. However, he has drawn our attention that the duty involvement in respect of undervaluation of both types of tyres i.e, with metallic

frames and without metallic frames would be around 2.5 Lakhs. We note that out of the said, the Commissioner (Appeals) had already extended the

benefit on the ground of undervaluation of metallic tyres. We also note that roughly the quantum of both the types of tyres imported by the appellant

was almost identical. Thus, leading us to belief that the duty difference in respect of both the types of tyres. was almost same Accordingly, we reduce

the RF from Rs.1.75 Lakhs to Rs. 1 Lakh and penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the said account to Rs.25,000/-. However, we make it clear that a

separate penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed on account of Policy violation is not being interfered with.

ROM application is disposed of in above terms.

(Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)