Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Surya Prakash Bhandari vs Commissioner Of Customs - Chennai Ii ... on 6 November, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I
Customs Appeal No. 41541 of 2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.20669/2013, dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of
Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001)
M/s. Surya Prakash Bhandari .....Appellant
No.24, Narayana Mudali Street
Chennai 600 079
Versus
Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent
Chennai II Import Commissionerate Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001 WITH Customs Appeal No. 41542 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.20669/2013, dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001) Smt. Usha Bhandari .....Appellant Proprietrix of Rajguru Industries No.24, Narayana Mudali Street Chennai 600 079 Versus Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent Chennai II Import Commissionerate Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001 WITH Customs Appeal No. 41547 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.20671/2013, dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001) M/s. Surya Prakash Bhandari .....Appellant No.24, Narayana Mudali Street Chennai 600 079 Versus Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent Chennai II Import Commissionerate Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001 AND 2 Customs Appeal No. 41636 of 2013 With Customs Cross Objection No.42013 of 2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.20669/2013, dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001) Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent ( Sea Port - Export) Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001 Versus Smt. Usha Bhandari .....Appellant Proprietrix of Rajguru Industries No.24, Narayana Mudali Street Chennai 600 079 APPEARANCE:
Shri S. Venkatachalam, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anoop Singh, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE MR. AJAYAN T.V., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER Nos.41245-41248/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 09.07.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 06.11.2025 Per Mr. Ajayan T.V.
These appeals, as detailed below, along with the cross objection, being inter-related and connected, have been taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.
C/41542/2013 preferred by Usha Bhandari, Proprietrix, Rajguru Appeal No Industries OIO No. 20669/2013 dated 22.03.2013/10.04.2013 Period Jan 2003 to June 2007 Differential For imports through Chennai Port For imports through Cochin Port duty demand AnnexureI AnnexureII Annexure III AnnexureIV 28,81,614 1,38,65,348 46,64,840 43,39,587 Penalty 85,00,000 45,00,000 3 C/41541/2013 preferred by Surya Prakash Bhandari, Power of Appeal No Attorney Holder of Rajguru Industries OIO No. 20669/2013 dated 22.03.2013/10.04.2013 Period Jan 2003 to June 2007 Differential For imports through Chennai Port For imports through Cochin Port duty demand AnnexureI AnnexureII Annexure III AnnexureIV 28,81,614 1,38,65,348 46,64,840 43,39,587 Penalty 85,00,000 45,00,000 C/41547/2013 preferred by Surya Prakash Bhandari, Power of Appeal No Attorney Holder of B.M.Shah Corporation OIO No. 20671/2013 dated 22.03.2013/10.04.2013 Period Sep 2003 to June 2007 Differential For imports through Chennai Port For imports through Cochin Port duty demand AnnexureI AnnexureII Annexure III AnnexureIV To pay duty on the determined value of Rs.4,40,560 (@Sl.No.32 of 28,51,216 4,63,578 2,48,208 Annexure II) and Rs.84,54,638 (i.r.o Sl.No.1 to
31) Redemption Nil 1,00,000 Nil Nil Fine 50000 i.r.o goods @Sl.No.32 of Penalty 3,50,000 Annexure II and Rs.56,00,000 Appeal No C/41636/2013 preferred by Commissioner of Customs OIO No. 20669/2013 dated 22.03.2013/10.04.2013 Period Jan 2003 to June 2007 Penalty For non-imposition of penalty under Section 114A
2. The relevant facts are that, based on intelligence that certain importers of self-adhesive tapes were resorting to undervaluation in such imports, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai initiated investigations against M/s. Raj Guru Industries, Chennai, and M/s.BM Shah Corporation, Chennai. In the course of investigation, the premises of M/s.BM Shah Corporation, Sowcarpet, Chennai were searched by DRI on 20.06.2007. Shri Surya Prakash Bhandari, the power of attorney holder of M/s. B.M Shah Corporation who was present at the premises during the search, informed that the transactions relating to three firms, namely, M/s.BM Shah Corporation, of which his mother Smt. Chand Kavar was the proprietrix, M/s. Raj Guru Industries, of which his wife Smt. Usha 4 Bhandari was the proprietrix, and Surya Impex, for which he was the proprietor, were dealt with in the said premises. Search was also conducted at the godowns and factory premises resulting in the recovery and seizure of a hard disc, a few files and documents. Statements were also recorded from Shri Surya Prakash Bhandari.
3. Upon investigation the department was of the view that during the period Jan 2003 to June 2007:
(i) Raj Guru Industries and B. M. Shah Corporation, (hereinafter also referred to as the importers/appellants) imported self-adhesive tapes, insulation log rolls etc. through Chennai Sea Port and Cochin Sea Port, vide various bills of entries.
(ii) The importers under-declared the value of these imported goods with a view to evade the payment of the customs duties which are ad valorem. The insurance documents and shipping advices pertaining to imports made by these importers and seized from their office cum sales premises contained prices higher than the prices declared to the customs for the same consignments. On being confronted with the said evidences, Shri Surya Prakash Bhandari who is person in-charge for the entire activities, has admitted that the values mentioned in the insurance and shipping documents were the actual values of the goods and that the difference between the declared value and the actual value of the goods had been paid/transferred to the suppliers through illegal channels.
4. The investigation culminated in separate Show Cause Notices (SCNs) being issued to the appellants in respect of their respective imports, proposing rejection of the transaction value declared by them in the Bills of Entry and their re-determination in terms of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported goods), Rules, 1988, read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 ( Customs Act in short) and proposing demand of differential duty in terms of proviso to Section 28(1) read with Section 28 AB, the Customs Act. The SCNs also alleged liability to confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (d) and Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act read with rules 11 & 14 of the 5 Foreign Trade (regulations) rules 1993. The notices also proposed consequent penalties in terms of Sec.112 (a) /114 A and 114 AA.
5. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the declared values, and after redetermining the same, confirmed the demands along with applicable interest and imposed penalties on the appellants in terms of Sec.112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962 vide the respective Orders in Original (OIOs in short). Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are in appeal against the impugned OIOs. The Revenue being aggrieved by the non-imposition of equal penalty under Sec. 114 A of the Customs Act, 1962 on Rajguru Industries, had preferred the appeal as detailed supra. The concerned appellant had also filed cross objections to the same.
6. Shri S Venkatachalam, Ld. Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted as under:
a) That the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the arguments, documents and the case laws submitted by the appellants in the proper perspective. The cross examination of Shri Surya Prakash Bhandari that was sought and which was initially allowed by the Adjudicating Authority was adjourned by the then Adjudicating Authority citing certain defects in the Board Circular issued appointing the Common Adjudicating Authority. However, the subsequent Adjudicating Authority denied the permission granted by the earlier Commissioner without furnishing any reasons.
b) That the allegation that the insurance documents and shipping advises pertaining to the imports, showed the correct value is not true. The price of self-adhesive tape fluctuates in the international market on a daily basis and in India also the price varies frequently depending on the demand and supply position. Most of the appellants' purchases are directly from the manufacturers of these goods and the department has made the enhancement of value merely based on suspicion and without conducting any investigation with the suppliers.
c) In respect of Bills of entry mentioned in Annexure I and III of the SCNs, the value of the consignments have been shown based on 6 the documents such as shipping advices, insurance documents proforma invoices, hand written entries and fax received from M/s.
Hadjee textiles as the documents are said to be corroborated by the statement of Shri Surya Prakash Bhandari. That the statement of Surya Prakash Bhandari is inadmissible as evidence for the reason that he was not allowed to be cross examined.
d) That the appellants have received the imported materials from various suppliers and cleared them by declaring the correct value in the bills of entry and on payment of appropriate duty. The insurance is paid by the foreign supplier who has sought to indicate higher value since the tapes are very delicate and the gum gets damaged due to vagaries of temperature, humidity contained in the air etc, to avoid loss and litigation. The alleged fax message does not contain any signature or authorisation and there is no indication that the appellant has acted upon the same. The hand written sheets are not shown to be in the handwriting of any of the persons connected with the appellants' unit and as it is unclear how they are related to the appellants and thus no evidentiary value can be attached. No statement has been recorded from the alleged author of the slips. Hence, the Annex I & III of the Show SCNs are prepared on assumptions and presumptions.
e) That the proforma invoices and unauthenticated fax messages which are not comparable with any bills of entries cannot be used as evidence for enhancing the value of particular bill of entry. The evidence of contemporaneous bills of entries submitted by the appellant vide their reply dated 21.01.2013 to prove that the value declared by the appellant is correct and that the allegation made in the Show Cause Notice is without basis; has been ignored.
f) In respect of bills of entry mentioned in Annexures II and IV are not based on any evidence as the enhancement of the value is not based on identical and similar goods, quantity, place of origin and period.
g) The worksheet in respect of Annexure II & IV are prepared based on factors arrived at arbitrarily without explaining the basis for adoption of such factors.
7h) The impugned orders demand differential duty both from Surya Prakash Bhandari and B M Shah Corporation / Raj Guru Industries, which is unsustainable in law.
7. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the department's appeal is not maintainable as already a huge penalty is imposed under section 112 A and there is no averment or prayer in the grounds of appeal to delete the said penalty. There cannot be multiple penalties for the same alleged offence.
8. The Ld. Counsel places reliance on the decisions in :
1) Suyog Extrusions Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2007 (213) E.L.T. 524 (Tri. - Mumbai)
2) Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)
3) Vintel Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (SEA), Chennai - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 145 (Tri. - Chennai)
4) Eastern Exports and Imports Co. Vs. C.C.E. & C. (Admn / AIU- PREV), Kolkatta 2007 (209) E.L.T. 459 (Tri. - Kolkata)
5) Puja Poly Plastics Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta 2001 (131) E.L.T.200 (Tri. - Kolkata)
6) Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Sahara Enterprises 2006 (206) E.L.T. 548 (Tri. - Chennai)
7) Shimnit Machine Tools and Equipment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva 2006 (204) E.L.T. 630 (Tri. - Mumbai)
8) Truwoods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam
- 2005 (186) E.L.T. 135 (Tri. - Del.)
9) Deepak Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkatta 2003 (159) E.L.T.851 (Tri. - Kolkata)
10) Shree Sagarmatha Distributors (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore 2005 (186) E.L.T. 307 (Tri. - Bang.)
11) Munna Gift Centre Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2004, 178 E.L.T. 310 (Tri. - Bang.)
12) Sheraton Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2002 (144) E.L.T. 432 (Tri. - Chennai) 8
13) G.K. Merchantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2004 (170) E.L.T. 550 (Tri. - Delhi)
14) Auto and Hardware Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2003 (151) E.L.T. 330 (Tri. - Mumbai).
15) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Alif International 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1083 (Tri. - Mumbai)
16) ABM International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla 2002 (148) E.L.T. 704 (Tri. - Delhi)
17) Sounds N. Images Vs. Collector of Customs - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 538 (S.C.)
18) V.K.Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata 2002 (141) E.L.T. 564 (Tri. - Kolkata).
19) Mohan Sales (India) Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta 2000 (121) E.L.T. 736 (Tribunal)
20) Laxmi Colour Lab. Vs. Collector of Customs, 1992 (62) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal)
21) Selection Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2005 (183) E.L.T. 273 (Tri. - Bang.)
22) Rumen Dey Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (Prev.) Shilong (2023) 10 Centax 174 (Tri. - Cal.)
23) Chandrakant H. Sanghvi Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva 2000 (121) E.L.T.788 (Tribunal)
24) Orient Enterprises, New Delhi Vs. Collector of Customs, Cochin 1986 (23) E.L.T. 507 (Tribunal)
25) Suyog Extrusions Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2007 (213) E.L.T. 524 (Tri. - Mumbai)
26) Ramkrishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad 2008 (230) E.L.T. 431 (Tri.- Ahmd.)
27) Collector of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Grover Imports 2003 (162) E.L.T. 992 (Tri. - Del.)
28) V.K.Vora Vs. Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex. Hyderabad 2002 (147) E.L.T. 924 (Tri. - Chennai)
29) Prashant Glass Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta 2001 (134) E.L.T. 791 (Tri. - Del.) 9
30) Euro Tech Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2007 (214) E.L.T. 298 (Tri. - Chennai)
31) Neptune Steel Processors Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva 2005 (191) E.L.T. 732 (Tri. - Mumbai)
32) Thilagarathinam Match Works Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. Tirunelveli 2013 (295) E.L.T. 195 (Mad.)
33) R.K.Soap and Oil Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2013 (294) E.L.T 463 (Tri. - Del.)
34) Kiran Tax Fab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad (2024) 17 Centax 205 (Tri. - Ahmd.)
35) H.S.Chadha Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi 2021 (378) E.L.T. 193 (Tri. - Del.)
36) Agarwal Metals & Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla 2021 (378) E.L.T. 155 (Tri. - Ahmd.)
37) Jeen Bhavani International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva III (2023) 6 Centax 11 (Tri. - Bom.)
38) G.Tech Industries Vs. Union of India 2016 (339) E.L.T.209 (P & H)
39) Basudev Garg Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2017 (48) S.T.R. (Del.)
40) J B Trading Corporation Vs. Union of India 1990 (45) E.L.T. 9 (Mad.)
41) Biren Shah Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1994 (72) E.L.T. 660 (Tribunal)
42) K Sons Overseas (I) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2001 (132) E.L.T. 93 (Tri. - Mumbai)
43) Jupiter Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2001 (131) E.L.T. 147 (Tri. - Mumbai)
44) Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) Vs. Jupiter Exports 2007 (213) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.)
45) Ratinder Pal Singh Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tughlakabad 2005 (190) E.L.T. 43 (Tri. - Del.)
46) Collector of Customs, Cochin Vs. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. 1999 (106) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) 10
47) Brij Mohan Sood Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla 2007 (217) E.L.T. 570 (Tri. - Ahmd.)
48) Pro-Fashional Computers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V 2008 (230) E.L.T. 612 (Tri. - Mumbai)
49) J K Pharma Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2004 (166) E.L.T. 407 (Tri. - Mumbai)
50) Famous Textile Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot 2005 (190) E.L.T. 361 (Tri. - Mumbai)
9. Shri Anoop Singh, Ld. Authorised Representative, appeared for the Respondent and reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. The Ld. A.R takes us through the impugned orders in original and contends that the Adjudicating Authority has, save for the reasons stated in the Department's appeal, given well-reasoned orders in respect of all the findings and therefore the demands confirmed as well as the penalties imposed are just and proper. He prays that the appeals are liable to be rejected. With respect to the Department's appeal in the case of M/s. Rajguru Industries, the Ld. A.R submits that the adjudicating authority has erred in not imposing equal penalty under Section 114A despite the demand being confirmed under Section 28 and to that extend the impugned order appears to be not legal.
10. Heard both sides. Perused the appeal records and case laws submitted as relied upon.
11. The issues in these appeals pertain to enhancement of value of goods imported during Jan 2003 to June 2007. Given that the Customs Act is of 1962 vintage, the jurisprudence on these aspects have crystallised many years ago. To appreciate the rival submissions, it would be apposite that we first recapitulate the judicial decisions that would govern the field wherein the provisions prevailing during the relevant period have been evaluated.
12. A journey down the well-trodden path takes us to the well-known decision of the Apex Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd v Commissioner 11 of Customs, Mumbai, 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC), wherein it was laid down as to how the transaction value has to be determined and it was also held that it is only when the transaction value under Rule 4 is rejected, then under Rule 3(ii) the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules. The Apex Court also held that, conversely, if the transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules.
13. The decision in Eicher Tractors has since been relied upon in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in CCE & ST., Noida v. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd., 2019 (365) ELT 3 (SC). It is worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portions from the decision in Sanivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd, which are as under:
"7......It is the basic principle enshrined in the aforesaid provision, i.e., Section 14, which can be culled out from the catena of judgments pronounced by this Court.
8. In Eicher Tractors Ltd., Haryana v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai- 1, (2001) 1 SCC 315 = 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), this Court held as under :
"6. Under the Act Customs duty is chargeable on goods. According to Section 14(1) of the Act, the assessment of duty is to be made on the value of the goods. The value may be fixed by the Central Government under Section 14(2). Where the value is not so fixed, the value has to be determined under Section 14(1). The value, according to Section 14(1), shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation - in the course of international trade. The word "ordinarily" necessarily implies the exclusion of "extraordinary" or "special" circumstances. This is clarified by the last phrase in Section 14 which describes an "ordinary" sale as one "where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale ...". Subject to these three conditions laid down in Section 14(1) of time, place and absence of special circumstances, the price of imported goods is to be determined under Section 14(1A) in accordance with the Rules framed in this behalf.
xxx xxx xxx
9. These exceptions are in expansion and explicatory of the special circumstances in Section 14(1) quoted earlier. It follows that unless the price 12 actually paid for the particular transaction falls within the exceptions, the Customs Authorities are bound to assess the duty on the transaction value. xxx xxx xxx
12. Rule 4(1) speaks of the transaction value. Utilisation of the definite article indicates that what should be accepted as the value for the purpose of assessment to Customs duty is the price actually paid for the particular transaction, unless of course the price is unacceptable for the reasons set out in Rule 4(2). "Payable" in the context of the language of Rule 4(1) must, therefore, be read as referring to "the particular transaction" and payability in respect of the transaction envisages a situation where payment of price may be deferred.
xxx xxx xxx
13. That Rule 4 is limited to the transaction in question is also supported by the provisions of the other rules each of which provide for alternate modes of valuation and allow evidence of value of goods other than those under assessment to be the basis of the assessable value. Thus, Rule 5 allows for the transaction value to be determined on the basis of identical goods imported into India at the same time; Rule 6 allows for the transaction value to be determined on the value of similar goods imported into India at the same time as the subject goods. Where there are no contemporaneous imports into India, the value is to be determined under Rule 7 by a process of deduction in the manner provided therein. If this is not possible the value is to be computed under Rule 7A. When value of the imported goods cannot be determined under any of these provisions, the value is required to be determined under Rule 8 "using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these Rules and sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on the basis of data available in India". If the phrase "the transaction value"
used in Rule 4 were not limited to the particular transaction then the other rules which refer to other transactions and data would become redundant. xxx xxx xxx
22. In the case before us, it is not alleged that the appellant has misdeclared the price actually paid. Nor was there a misdescription of the goods imported as was the case in Padia Sales Corpn. [1993 Supp. (4) SCC 57] It is also not the respondent's case that the particular import fell within any of the situations enumerated in Rule 4(2). No reason has been given by the Assistant Collector for rejecting the transaction value under Rule 4(1) except the price list of vendor. In doing so, the Assistant Collector not only ignored Rule 4(2) but also acted on the basis of the vendor's price list as if a price list is invariably proof of the transaction value. This was erroneous and could not be a reason by itself to reject the transaction value. A discount is a commercially-acceptable measure which may be resorted to by a vendor for a variety of reasons including stock clearance. A price list is really no more than a general quotation. It does not preclude discounts on the listed price. In fact, a discount 13 is calculated with reference to the price list. Admittedly in this case a discount up to 30% was allowable in ordinary circumstances by the Indian agent itself. There was the additional factor that the stock in question was old and it was a one-time sale of 5-yearold stock. When a discount is permissible commercially, and there is nothing to show that the same would not have been offered to anyone else wishing to buy the old stock, there is no reason why the declared value in question was not accepted under Rule 4(1)."
9. To the same effect, are other judgments, reiterating the aforesaid principle, such as, Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. South India Television (P) Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 373 = 2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), Chaudhary Ship Breakers v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, (2010) 10 SCC 576 = 2010 (259) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Customs, Vishakhapatnam v. Aggarwal Industries Ltd., (2012) 1 SCC 186 = 2011 (272) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.).
10. The law, thus, is clear. As per Sections 14(1) and 14(1A), the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be the price as referred to in that provision. Section 14(1) is a deeming provision as it talks of 'deemed value' of such goods. Therefore, normally, the Assessing Officer is supposed to act on the basis of price which is actually paid and treat the same as assessable value/transaction value of the goods. This, ordinarily, is the course of action which needs to be followed by the Assessing Officer. This principle of arriving at transaction value to be the assessable value applies. That is also the effect of Rule 3(1) and Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, namely, the adjudicating authority is bound to accept price actually paid or payable for goods as the transaction value. Exceptions are, however, carved out and enumerated in Rule 4(2). As per that provision, the transaction value mentioned in the Bills of Entry can be discarded in case it is found that there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time or if the buyers and sellers are related to each other. In order to invoke such a provision it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to give reasons as to why the transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry was being rejected; to establish that the price is not the sole consideration; and to give the reasons supported by material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer arrives at his own assessable value.
1411. In South India Television (P) Ltd., the Court explained as to how the value is derived from the price and under what circumstances the deemed value mentioned in Section 14(1) can be departed with. Following discussion in the said judgment needs to be quoted hereunder :
"10. We do not find any merit in this civil appeal for the following reasons. Value is derived from the price. Value is the function of the price. This is the conceptual meaning of value. Under Section 2(41), "value" is defined to mean value determined in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the sole repository of law governing valuation of goods. The Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 have been framed only in respect of imported goods. There are no rules governing the valuation of export goods. That must be done based on Section 14 itself. In the present case, the Department has charged the respondent importer alleging misdeclaration regarding the price. There is no allegation of misdeclaration in the context of the description of the goods. In the present case, the allegation is of underinvoicing. The charge of underinvoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. It is for the Department to prove that the apparent is not the real. Under Section 2(41) of the Customs Act, the word "value" is defined in relation to any goods to mean the value determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 14(1). The value to be declared in the bill of entry is the value referred to above and not merely the invoice price.
xxx xxx xxx
12. However, before rejecting the invoice price the Department has to give cogent reasons for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of the transaction value. Therefore, before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or unacceptable, the Department has to find out whether there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time. Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, the question of importing Section 14(1A) does not arise. In the absence of such evidence, invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. Invoice is the evidence of value. Casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value of imported goods. Undervaluation has to be proved. If the charge of undervaluation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. If the Department wants to allege undervaluation, it must make detailed inquiries, collect material and also adequate evidence. When undervaluation is alleged, the Department has to prove it by evidence or information about 15 comparable imports. For proving undervaluation, if the Department relies on declaration made in the exporting country, it has to show how such declaration was procured. We may clarify that strict rules of evidence do not apply to adjudication proceedings. They apply strictly to the Courts' proceedings. However, even in adjudication proceedings, the AO has to examine the probative value of the documents on which reliance is placed by the Department in support of its allegation of undervaluation. Once the Department discharges the burden of proof to the above extent by producing evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher price, the onus shifts to the importer to establish that the invoice relied on by him is valid. Therefore, the charge of underinvoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods
13. Section 14(1) speaks of "deemed value". Therefore, invoice price can be disputed. However, it is for the Department to prove that the invoice price is incorrect. When there is no evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher price, the invoice price is liable to be accepted. The value in the export declaration may be relied upon for ascertainment of the assessable value under the Customs Valuation Rules and not for determining the price at which goods are ordinarily sold at the time and place of importation. This is where the conceptual difference between value and price comes into discussion."
14. Bearing in mind the principles laid down in the aforementioned judicial dicta, we now evaluate the findings of the adjudicating authority and the evidentiary basis on which it has been premised.
15. We find that in these cases, the respective Adjudicating Authority has held that the value declared in the bills of entry mentioned in Annexures I and II of the respective SCNs can be rejected and redetermined as proposed therein on the basis of shipping advices/insurance documents/proforma invoices, handwritten entries and a fax received from M/s. Hadjee Textiles stated to be corroborated by the statements of Shri. Surya Prakash Bhandari. The statements, though retracted, are held to be voluntary, rejecting the retractions as afterthought. The Adjudicating Authority, holding that the actual value of the goods has to be inferred from the evidences recovered during the investigation, has also accepted the methodology of redetermining the value of consignments mentioned in Annexure II and IV of the 16 SCN, such redeterminations being made by adopting the ratio of actual value to declared value as found in such proximate consignment. It is only on a perusal of the annexures II and IV of the SCN, we find that they in turn, state their reliance on Annexure I and III respectively as the values of proximate consignments for the basis of such redetermination. The adjudicating authority has observed that import of identical goods and similar goods were not noticed during the contemporaneous period. These findings have been contested by the appellant as per their contentions mentioned above placing reliance on a host of decisions, although citing only a few at the Bar.
16. The appellants have contended that proforma invoices cannot be relied on for rejection of transaction value placing reliance on the decisions in Eicher Tractors Ltd v CC, Mumbai, 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC), Suyog Extrusions v CC (Import) Mumbai, 2007(213) ELT 524 (Tri-Mumbai) affirmed in Commissioner v. Suyog Extrustions, 2008 (228) ELT A 29 (SC), CC, Chennai v Sahara Enterprises, 2006 (206) ELT 548 (Tri-Chennai), Puja Poly Plastics Pvt Ltd v CC, Calcutta, 2001 (131) ELT 200 (Tri-Kolkata), G K. Merchantile Pvt Ltd v CC, New Delhi and similar decisions. We find that the common refrain running through the said decisions is that, a proforma invoice evidences only an offer price quoted at best, and cannot be the basis for enhancement of declared value. We find no reason to take a different view. An offered price is always open to negotiation. Unless there is evidence to indicate that the price quoted in the proforma invoice has become firm and that consideration has accordingly been paid to the supplier, proforma invoice cannot form the basis for rejection of the declared value or enhancement of transaction value.
17. The appellants have also protested the rejection of transaction value and its enhancement on the basis of insurance documents. In the instant case we find that the reliance on insurance documents has been made by the adjudicating authority on the surmise that it would not be a prudent business practice to accept higher insurance value, unless it was the true value. It is also noticed that the adjudicating 17 authority has placed reliance on the insurance documents without stating the basis, premised on customs valuation rules, that accord sanction to infer the 110% insurance premium shown in the insurance documents to be the CIF value. The appellants have contended that insurance is paid by the foreign supplier who has sought to indicate higher value since the tapes are very delicate and the gum gets damaged due to vagaries of temperature, humidity contained in the air etc, to avoid loss and litigation. We do not find the said contention of the appellants improbable. That apart, it is seen that in the case of Orient Enterprises, New Delhi v Collector of Customs, Cochin, 1986 (23) ELT 507 (Tri), the Tribunal, finding force in the submissions that there is no such established mercantile practice that the goods must be insured for 110% of their value and secondly, whether the goods should at all be insured, and if so, for what value, is purely a matter of contract between the buyer and the seller of the goods; has gone on to hold that no firm conclusions with reference to the valuation of the goods can be arrived at on the basis of insurance memos and such evidence does not advance the case of the Revenue. Therefore, adhering to the finding of the coordinate bench of this tribunal in the decision infra, we cannot countenance such reliance placed on insurance documents in the instant case to reject the declared value and to redetermine the same.
18. It is also seen that the appellants have disputed the reliance placed on the paper and fax message recovered from the searched premises contending that the alleged fax message does not contain any signature or authorisation and there is no indication that the appellant has acted upon the same. Likewise it was contended that the hand written sheets are not shown to be in the handwriting of any of the persons connected with the appellants' unit and since no statement has been recorded from the alleged author of the slips, it is unclear how they are related to the appellants and thus no evidentiary value can be attached. It is seen that the adjudicating authority has not controverted these factual assertions of the nature of these documents but has instead chosen to rely on them on the premise that they have 18 been explained by Shri. Surya Prakash Bhandari in his statement. Reliance on such unproven slips and fax message cannot be countenanced.
19. In fact, we notice that the entire case as well as the reliance on the proforma invoices/insurance documents, paper and fax message hinge on the purported admissions made by Shri. Surya Prakash Bhandari in his statements. There is no cavil that these statements have also been retracted by the deponent.
20. We find that the retractions are brushed aside as afterthought and reliance is sought to be placed on the statements on the ground that there is nothing in the show cause notice to show that the statements have been retracted. Admittedly, the cross examination of Shri. Surya Prakash Bhandari sought by the appellant is seen to be denied on the ground that the deponent is the power of attorney holder of M/s. Rajguru Industries and was carrying out all affairs of the noticee company and hence no legal purpose would be served in allowing M/s. Rajguru Industries to cross examine its own power of attorney.
21. The adjudicating authority, in his narration of facts, has noted that in reply to the show cause notice, it has been stated that the statements of Shri. Surya Prakash Bhandari recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, purportedly admitting to undervaluation, has been retracted stating that they were not voluntary and recorded under threat and pressure. The fact that a notarised affidavit in this regard has been filed also remains uncontroverted. It is seen that the appellants have repeatedly during the adjudication proceedings reiterated the said contentions. The appellants have, vide their letter dated 25.05.2011, pointed out that in their interim reply dated 23.07.2008 they had brought out the contradictions in the statement of Shri. Sura Prakash Bhandari and stated that only cross examination will reveal the truth. It was also stated in the letter dated 25.05.2011 that in response to their request, even date was given. It was further stated that no reason has been stated why the permission already given by the earlier commissioner was changed. The appellants are 19 seen to have cited the CBEC Circular F.No.4/61/61-Cus VI which clarified interalia that where the evidence of any person is relied upon the party concerned must be given an opportunity to test such evidence in cross examination as otherwise it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance was also placed on judicial decisions. The appellants again reiterated their request for cross examination vide letter dated 03.08.2011. Yet, the adjudicating authority has chosen to reject the request. We find that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that the deponent, as a power of attorney holder, is only acting on behalf of the Principal. In fact the SCNs having been issued separately to the Principal and the power of attorney holder, itself recognizes them as distinct. That being the case, denial of the right to cross examine the power of attorney on the actions that he has purportedly undertaken on the principal's behalf is violative of the principal's right of defence.
22. That apart, we also find that the procedure prescribed under Section 138B of Customs Act, 1962 has not been adhered to and having failed to do so, the statements being denuded of their relevance, cannot be relied upon in any manner. This Tribunal, in benches across the country, placing reliance on various decisions including those of High Courts and Apex Courts, have consistently held that the test of relevancy of the statements made under Section 108, for reasons of the stipulations in the sub-section (2) of Section 138 has to be satisfied under the procedure stipulated in Section 138B(1), requiring the Adjudicating Authority to examine the deponent as a witness to prove the contents of the statement, to satisfy himself as to its voluntary nature and when intended to be relied on against the noticee/assessee, ought to be tested on the touchstone of cross examination. It is seen that a plethora of decisions bolster our aforesaid view. The decisions in Additional Director General (Adjudication) v. Its My Name Pvt Ltd, 2021 (375) ELT 545 (Del), Junaid Kudia v CC, Mumbai Import -II, (2024) 16 Centax 503 (Tri-Bom) affirmed in CC Mumbai Import-II v. Junaid Judia, (2024) 16 Centax 504 (SC), Jeen Bhavani International 20 v CC Nhava Sheva-III, (2023) 6 Centax 11 (Tri-Bom) affirmed in Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-III v Jeen Bhavani International, (2023) 6 Centax 14 (SC), Suni Aidasani @ Vicky v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi, (2024) 18 Centax 321 (Del) and the decision of this Tribunal in M/s. Geetham Steels Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem, 2025 (3) TMI 1098-CESTAT CHENNAI, refer in this context.
23. We thus find the aforesaid reasons given by the Adjudicating Authority to place reliance on the retracted statements of Shri. Surya Prakash Bhandari, while at the same time denying the opportunity to cross examine the deponent, not only specious, but also opposed to the settled principles of natural justice. The reliance placed on these statements without testing their relevancy on the anvil of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 and without the deponent being offered for cross examination, being decidedly untenable, render the findings premised on the same unsustainable.
24. We also notice that the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in para 41 of the impugned OIO No.20669/2013 dated 22.02.2013/10.04.2013 in respect of the bills of entry mentioned in Annexures II and IV to the SCN and the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in para 40 of the impugned OIO No.20671/2013 dated 22.02.2013/10.04.2013, in respect of the bills of entry mentioned in Annexures II and IV to the SCN, are more or less verbatim reproduction of the allegation in the respective SCNs as available at para 11.3 therein. In fact there is an ambiguous statement "Accordingly the value has to be determined for these consignments by adopting the same ratio of actual value to the declared value as found in such proximate consignment" repeated both in the SCN and the findings. No doubt, the tabulations in the annexure has a column with title "ratio of actual value to declared value." However, neither the SCN, nor the impugned orders in original, demonstrate how the ratio has been arrived at in the first place and the basis for applying the ratio for determining the purported actual value. Moreover, what 21 exactly are being considered as 'such proximate consignment' is also not directly referenced in the SCN or the impugned OIOs and is left to inference. As regards the 'actual value' mentioned in Annexures I and II of the SCN, they are values taken from the proforma invoice/insurance documents. Adoption of the values declared in such proforma invoices/insurance documents, even dehors the disputed statement, cannot be made the basis for rejection of declared value in the first place, for the reasons we have elucidated supra.
25. Yet another fact germane and meriting consideration is that, during the adjudication proceedings after the personal hearing, the appellants had, vide their letter dated 21.01.2013, adduced evidence of contemporaneous imports to substantiate their declared price. The Adjudicating authority, while conceding that such evidence has been produced, has chosen to ignore the same stating that the evidence of documents showing actual prices discovered during the search corroborated with the statement of Shri. Suray Prakash Bandari are to be accorded primacy vis a vis the contemporaneous imports shown by the appellants.
26. We find that the approach of the adjudicating authority in this regard, of ignoring the contemporaneous import evidence adduced by the appellant justifying the values as declared by them, does not indicate a fair and unbiased approach. Moreover, rejection of the evidence of contemporaneous import is clearly opposed to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in its decisions in Eicher Tractors and Sanjevani Non
-Ferrous Trading cases cited above, whereby it has been laid down in unambiguous terms that, when undervaluation is alleged, the Department has to prove it by evidence or information about comparable imports. It has been held that casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value of imported goods. The Apex Court has also held that if the charge of undervaluation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. More than two and a half decades ago, the lament on this count expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in its decision in Sounds n Images v. Collector of 22 Customs, 2000 (117) ELT 538 SC, while allowing the appeal of the appellant, which squarely applies to the appeals at hand, merits reproduction and is as below:
"5. A fax message setting out a quotation by one party in Singapore to another party in Singapore cannot be made the basis of valuation of goods imported into India, particularly so when the importer's request to be allowed to cross-examine the alleged offeror is declined. It is always for the Customs authorities to establish by methods known to law and in a satisfactory manner that the value of imported goods is not what the importer says it is and what that value actually is. That onus cannot be shifted to the importer. We have no doubt that all this has been said by the courts again and again, but to no avail."
27. The appellants have further contended that since the impugned orders demand differential duty both from Surya Prakash Bhandari and B M Shah Corporation / Raj Guru Industries, they are unsustainable in law. However, we notice that the adjudicating authority has deemed it fit to consider him the defacto importer in all respects for the reason that the power of attorney holder is entrusted with unfettered powers in handling day to day affairs of the proprietary concern. The Adjudicating Authority has then gone on to hold that the demand jointly made on the proprietary firm/proprietor/proprietrix as well as the power of attorney holder, is tenable.
28. Admittedly, Shri Surya Prakash Bhandari is only the power of attorney holder, and is therefore, acting on behalf of the Principal. In this context, it is necessary to examine the liabilities of such a person who acts on behalf of the Principal vis-a vis the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. We note that the provision for recovery of duty is Section 28 of the Act which provides for recovery of duty non-levied, short-levied or erroneously refunded "from the person chargeable with duty". In the context of imports, such a person "chargeable with duty" would evidently be the importer. The definition of the term 'importer' as provided in 23 Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 is " "importer", in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption, includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer."
29. Be that as it may, we find that Section 147 of the Customs Act stipulates the liability of principal and agent. Sub-section (1) of the said Section 147 stipulates that where the Act requires anything to be done by the owner, importer or exporter of any goods, it may be done on his behalf by his agent.
30. Sub-section (2) of Section 147 stipulates that any such thing done by an agent of the owner, importer or exporter of any goods shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been done with the knowledge and consent of such owner, importer or exporter, so that in any proceedings under the Customs Act, the owner, importer or exporter of the goods shall also be liable as if the thing has been done by himself. In other words, the said sub-section (2) of Section 147 ibid makes it explicit that when any such thing as required by the Act is done by the agent, the owner, importer or exporter is deemed to have accorded the consent and it is deemed to have been done with their knowledge, unless such owner, importer or exporter proves that they did not have any knowledge of such act or proves that they had not consented to such act as done by the agent. In the absence of such proof to the contrary, by the specific use of the word 'also', the section makes it clear, that not only the agent, but the owner, importer or exporter is also, i.e. in addition to the agent, liable for any such thing that has been done by the agent.
31. It is seen that sub-section 3 of Section 147 ibid stipulates that when any person is expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner, importer or exporter of any goods to be his agent in respect of such goods for all or any of the purposes of this Act, such person shall, without prejudice to the liability of the owner, importer or exporter, be deemed to be the owner, importer or exporter of such goods for such purposes.
2432. However, the proviso to the said sub-section 3 of Section 147 stipulates that where any duty is not levied or is short-levied or erroneously refunded on account of any reason, other than any wilful act, negligence or default of the agent, such duty shall not be recovered from the agent, unless in the opinion of the Assistant Commission or Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs the same cannot be recovered from the owner, importer or exporter.
33. Thus, it is pellucid, that unless the agent is put to notice under sub- section 3 of Section 147 read with Section 28 that for the agent's wilful act, negligence or default, the agent is alleged to be liable for the duty not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded; and in all other cases on account of any reason other than any wilful act, negligence or default of the agent, unless the agent is again put to notice under the proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 147 read with the said sub-section that the officers specified therein are of the opinion that the said duty not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded cannot be recovered from the owner, importer or exporter and that therefore the same is being sought to be recovered from the agent; there cannot be a valid demand on such an agent.
34. Our views, as expressed above, are fortified by the decision of the, Apex Court in Collector of Customs, Cochin v Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd, 1999 (106) ELT 9 (SC), wherein, while examining the tenability of the notice for short levy served on the clearing agent of the importer prior to the expiry of the period of limitation, which however was served on the importer himself after the expiry of the period of limitation, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"6. Under Section 28, notice has to be served on "the person chargeable with duty". The person chargeable with duty in the case of imports is the importer. If the clearing agent of the importer is sought to be made liable as person chargeable with duty in the circumstances set out in Section 147(3) read with proviso, the notice must be addressed to the clearing agent and must set out that he is being made liable under the proviso to Section 147(3).
7. We do not find that in the present case, any notice has been served on the clearing agent on the ground that the department 25 cannot recover the duty from the owner or importer thus making the agent liable. The notice, therefore, cannot be construed as a valid notice against the agent for the recovery of any duty from the agent under the proviso to Section 147(3). In fact, in the present case, on 9- 10-1986, such notice could not have been served on the agent because on 9-10-1986, there was nothing which would lead the Assistant Collector of Customs to come to the conclusion that the duty could not be recovered from the importer. Even a notice for recovery of duty had not been served on the importer on 9-10-1986. Notice has been served on the importer only later, on 14-10-1986, when such service of the notice was barred by limitation. The proviso to Section 147(3) does not contemplate a case where the claim against the principal i.e. the importer is time barred because of a default on the part of the department itself. It refers to a case where a department after taking all necessary steps under the Customs Act, 1962 is, for some reason, unable to recover the duty from the importer or owner. That is not the case here. We have not been shown any reason why the notice could not be served on the importer within the period of six months prescribed under Section 28. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, the proviso to Section 147(3) is not attracted."
(emphasis supplied)
35. In the instant cases, there is no finding that the power of attorney holder has held himself out to be the importer or that he is the owner. Therefore, in view of our elucidation of the position in law as expounded above, as well as applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision in the case of Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd, we hold that in the absence of any notice addressed to the power of attorney holder setting out that he is being made liable on the ground that the department cannot recover the duty from the owner or importer under the proviso to Section 147 (3), or in the absence of a notice under Section 147 (3) read with Section 28, addressed to the power of attorney holder setting out that he is being made liable for the reasons excluded in the said proviso to Section 147(3), the demand made on the power of attorney holder is wholly unsustainable.
36. In any event, given the aforesaid definition of "importer", in the absence of any finding that the power of attorney holder has held himself out to 26 be the importer or that he is the owner and had in such capacity filed the bill of entry jointly with the proprietary firm, such a demand of duty jointly from the proprietary firm and its power of attorney holder, is wholly untenable. At this juncture, it would also be pertinent to note that the Department, in its Appeal filed seeking imposition of penalty under Section 114A has at para 6 on page 23 of its appeal, has stated that it is Smt. Usha Bhandari, Proprietrix of M/s. Rajguru Industries who has filed the bills of entries which are in question, and who is the importer in that case. Hence, in view of such demands made jointly on the proprietary firm and its power of attorney holder being untenable, the impugned orders in original are liable to be set aside on this count too.
37. We find that the evidences relied upon by the revenue in the SCN that form the basis of the allegations, coupled with the unexplained ratios adopted while arriving at the purported "actual value" and consequent determination of differential duty, as well as the demand of duty jointly made on the proprietary firm/proprietor/proprietrix and the power of attorney holder, are instances of incurable lacunae existing in the SCN. Such lacunae, when considered along with the factum of non- controverting of the evidence in the form of contemporaneous imports adduced by the appellant in support of its contentions more than a decade ago at the first instance of their production before the adjudicating authority, and also the fact that the statements relied upon are to be eschewed for their unproven relevancy as elucidated supra; the scales of justice clearly tilt in favour of the appellants.
38. In light of our discussions and analysis and for the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the impugned orders in original are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside as prayed for. Ordered accordingly. The appeals of the appellants are allowed.
39. Given our aforesaid findings, the appeal of the Department for non- imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 is dismissed as devoid of merits and the cross objections filed in the said appeal of the Department also stands disposed off.
2740. In parting, we find that fifty citations have been relied upon by the appellant in this matter, while citing only a few therefrom at the Bar. we have deprecated the practice of inundating us with innumerable citation and have made our views clear in this regard in the decisions of this Tribunal made in FINAL ORDER Nos.40481-40482/2025 dated 25- 04-2025 in the case of Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Final Order No.40664/2025 dated 26.06.2025 in the case of Exide Industries Limited v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, reiterated yet again recently in Final Order No.41033 dated 23.09.2025 in the case of Modern Bakers (Madras) Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise disapproving the practice of judgements being piled on indiscriminately. We refuse to be impressed by sheer number of citation, and would rather be given a few apt decisions, any day. We reiterate yet again that we deem it wholly unnecessary to discuss and detail the applicability or otherwise, merely because the citations have been placed in the compilation submitted. Rather than a judgement that contains the apt ratiocination, ten are placed before us, and the sheer plethora of citations makes it imperative that the order abjures from discussing every such decision, to obviate the otherwise inevitable consequence of inordinately lengthy orders.
In sum, the appeals of the appellants are allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in open court on 06.11.2025)
(AJAYAN T.V.) (M. AJIT KUMAR)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
ra