Ashok K. Arya ORDER
S.K. Mohanty, Member (J)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported P-68 watch movement from Hong Kang and filed the Bills of Entry for home consumption before the Customs authorities having jurisdiction over the port of import. On the basis of the invoice issued by the overseas supplier, the appellant had indicated the per unit value of imported goods (US $ 0.08 i.e. Rs. 3.66) for the purpose of assessment of the duty liability. On scrutiny of the documents, it was revealed by the Department that the value of imported goods declared by the appellant is quite low. Accordingly, for ascertaining the correct value of goods, the Customs Department sought information from the President of All India Watch Manufacturers Association, New Delhi., who informed that the price of impugned goods was approximately HK $ 2.25 or Rs. 15/- to Rs. 16/- per piece. On the basis of such report, the Customs Department prima-facie formed the opinion that the goods were undervalued by the appellant, and accordingly, the subject goods were detained under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were assessed provisionally on execution of Surety Bond and on payment of Customs duty on the provisionally assessed value. Subsequently, the Department further enquired into the matter through DRI and Consulate General of India at Hong Kong. On the basis of the report received from various agencies, show cause proceedings were initiated against the appellants, seeking for enhancement of value, payment of differential Customs duty and for imposition of penalties. The SCN dated 05.05.2011 was adjudicated vide order dated 06.02.1012, wherein the proposals made therein were confirmed. On appeal, the adjudged demands were upheld by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, these present appeals were filed before the Tribunal.
3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the assessment in this case is provisional and has not been finalized till date. Thus, he submits that issuance of show cause notice and passing of the adjudication order under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not proper and justified. To support such stand, ld. Advocate has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Mumbai vs. ITC Ltd.-MANU/SC/4842/2006 : 2006 (203) E.L.T. 532 (S.C.), the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITC Ltd. - MANU/DE/2890/2009 : 2010 (250 E.L.T. 189 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of A.S. Syndicate (Warehousing) Pvt. Ltd. - MANU/WB/0417/2009 : 2011 (267) E.L.T. 469 (Calcutta).
4. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that provisional ascertainment of duty done in this case cannot be equated with provisional assessment as prescribed under Section 18<........