(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. __________________ Appellant
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs ___ Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4433 of 2006, decided on September 17, 2015
With
Civil Appeal No. 2815 of 2007
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Civil Appeal No. 4433 of 2006
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) challenging the final Order dated July 25, 2006 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘CESTAT’), upon remand by this Court by the judgment and order dated February 16, 2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1998 (The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, 2000 (3) SCC 472), whereby CESTAT, in spite of arriving at the categorical finding that there was no evidence on record for verifying whether actual price paid for the imported equipment was more than what was declared, based on “estimate”, assumptions and presumptions, purported to ‘work out’ a derived value of the imported equipments more than what was declared and directed the Adjudicating Authority to adopt the said derived value and determine the custom duties payable and consequently the differential duty to be demanded and recovered from the appellant in respect of the subject imported equipments. On the basis of this parroted determination of derived value of the imported equipments, the CESTAT further purported to hold that there was alleged undervaluation of the imported equipments by the appellant and, hence the goods were liable to confiscation but was to be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2 crores, reduced from Rs. 6.5 crores imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. The CESTAT further imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 crore upon the appellant, reduced from Rs. 4 crores imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the aforesaid order of the CESTAT.
3. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
4. Insofar as the order of CESTAT on merits is concerned, we do not find any fault therein. However, at the same time, we are also of the view that there may be some dispute about the actual value to the extent to which there was under-valuation of the imported equipments. The price which was disclosed in the Bill of Entry of the aforesaid equipment was shown as DM 13.5 million. The Department has stated that the price should have been DM 21.27 million.
5. Without going into the details in this behalf, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served by reducing the said price to DM 17 million. The order of CESTAT is modified to the aforesaid extent allowing the appeal partly.
Civil Appeal No. 2815 of 2007
6. In view of the aforesaid order passed in Civil Appeal No. 4433 of 2006, the appeal of the Department shall also stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
———
