Case Law Details
H S Chadha Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Mails and other electronic evidence cannot be relied upon to prove undervaluation in absence of compliance of provisions of Section 138C of the Act ibid as held by Anvar P. V and S.N.Agrotech. It is trite law that statements can be relied upon only if they are voluntary and true. It can be seen from above that all the statements of the Director Shri H S Chadha recorded on 16.07.2014, 25.08.2014, 24.09.2014, 26.09.2014, 12.11.2014, are conflicting. There are many such instances in the statements of the appellants which have been brought to our notice by the Ld Counsel but the Department has picked only those which support it while discarding those which support the appellant. Thus statements of Shri H S Chadha cannot be relied upon and given credence to substantiate the Departments claim of undervaluation without any corroborative evidence and the charge of undervaluation cannot be made out on mere assumptions and presumptions especially since he himself has stated on various occasions that there is no undervaluation and these are quotations. Tyres are regularly imported all over the country and therefore the Department could have easily garnered evidence of contemporaneous imports which it admittedly did not do. Otherwise also, Mr. Chadha has not been examined by the Adjudication Authority before placing reliance on his statements, which was mandatorily required to be observed in compliance of Section 139 of the Customs Act. It is also trite law that quotations cannot be the basis for re-determining the value of goods as held Ld CESTAT in Nava Durga Enterprises vs Commissioner of Customs (Sea Import) 2013 (295) ELT 277. Thus the allegation of undervaluation is not proved.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
The issue in these appeals being common – undervaluation of tyres imported by the appellant company is for trade and further the companies are under same management. Under common investigation against both the appellant Companies – M/s Indo Silicon Electronics Pvt Ltd and M/s Vortex Industries Pvt Ltd and the common managing director namely Shri H S Chadha revenue alleged undervaluation and rejected the transaction value. Thereafter revenue determine the valuation and have demanded differential duty taxguru.in along with order of confiscation and penalty. In both the cases, penalty has also been imposed on Shri H S Chadha, who is also in appeal before the tribunal in both the cases.
2. The appellants M/s Indo Silicon Electronics Pvt Ltd and its Director Shri H S Chadha are in appeal against the order-in-original dated 03.03.2016 wherein the Ld Adjudicating Authority have:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
