CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I Customs Appeal No. 21699 of 2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-009 & 010-15-16 dated

28.04.2015 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)

M/s Paschal Form Work (I) Pvt Ltd., .. APPELLANT S.No.208-1&2, Bayyavaram Village, Anakapalli, Andhra Pradesh – 530 031.

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT Visakhapatnam - Customs Customs House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035.

AND Customs Appeal No. 21698 of 2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-009 & 010-15-16 dated

28.04.2015 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)

Shri Eldo Vargese, General Manager .. APPELLANT Plot No.901, Road No.46, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 033.

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT Visakhapatnam - Customs Customs House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035.

APPEARANCE:

Ms Nandita Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri B. Subhas Chandra Bose & Shri B. Sangameshwar Rao, Authorized Representatives for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No. A/30021-30022/2026 Date of Hearing: 12.08.2025 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 [ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD]

M/s Paschal Form Work (I) Pvt Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as appellants) has filed Appeal No. C/21699/2015 against the impugned order / Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-CUSTM-000-APP-009-15-16 dated 28.04.2015 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam.

2. Shri Eldo Vargese General Manager of the Company has filed Appeal No. C/21698/2015 against the same O-I-A. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty 50,000/- against him and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Since, both appeals have been filed against same Order-in-

Appeal. Therefore, heard simultaneously to decide together.

3. The fact in brief, as per appellants that the appellants issued one (1) Purchase Order (PO) No. PFW/020/2009-10 dated 25.05.2009 to their parent company for purchase of Steel bars of various lengths. The PO contained two separate offers i.e., 400001382 and 400001383 of 86,139.67 Euro each and C&F charges of 6,030 Euro. Based on the PO, the parent company exported goods against 3 invoices. The goods were shipped vide Bill of lading dated 24.06.2009 and reached Visakhapatnam on 28.07.2009. All the relevant information, documents and invoices in original were handed over to M/s Sea Bird Sea and Air Logistics Division, a CHA for clearing the imported goods. The two (2) offer numbers with equal quantity and amount mentioned in the PO created confusion in the mind of the CHA. The CHA believed that only one offer number and only one invoice (Invoice No. 208/10034202 dated

16.06.2009) is required to be taken into account. Further, CHA could not understand what was meant by ‘carriage sale’ (4020 Euro), as mentioned in invoice. In this confusion, CHA requested the appellant to amend the PO and raise a fresh PO for 86,137.67 Euro i.e. excluding the C&F charges and to amend the invoice accordingly. As requested by the CHA, the appellant shared the amended/revised PO, however, the appellants did not amend the invoice copies. The CHA scanned the invoice and deleted C&F charges i.e. Euro 4,020 in the invoice. Since it was the very first import by the appellants, they did not understand the significance of the mistake made by the CHA. Further, since they were under pressure to get the goods cleared from the port, they solely relied on the advice of the CHA and raised the revised purchase order and gave it to CHA for clearing the goods.

4. Thereafter, the CHA filed the BOE No. 555348 dated 31.08.2009 along with requisite documents to clear the goods and the same was facilitated through RMS without assessment and examination. Further, CHA had advised the appellants that t