Sharaya International Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that Adjudicating Authority is bound by the findings in remand proceedings, it is not open for him to revisit the issue. Thus, Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the limited scope of its jurisdiction in terms of the remand order and thereby fell in error in reconsidering all the issues on merits.
Facts- The appellant is a regular importer of deodorant and perfumes and filed the Bill of Entry. On examination by the officers, the goods were found to be not affixed with MRP labels, which was a requirement for assessment and clearance of these items in terms of Notification No.24/2000 dated 24.11.2000 issued by the DGFT read with Excise Notification No.01/2002, Notification No. 05/2001 and 49/2008.
On completion of investigation, proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the allegation that they had not declared MRP before the Customs and sold the goods at higher MRP and thereby evaded the customs duty of Rs.6,23,664/- in respect of the live consignment seized at the port under B/E dated 27.0 1.2015. During search operations in the business premises of the appellant on 02.02.2015, where 121890 pieces of imported body spray/perfumes and gift pack, etc worth Rs.37,97,010/- were found, which did not have MRP affixed on them. These goods were imported by paying duty on declared RSP.
