SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 647

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Multitek Engineers – Appellant
Versus
Bangalore-cus – Respondent
C/20684/2014



CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 Customs Appeal No. 20684 of 2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 434 to 437/2013 CUS(B) dated

25.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.)

M/s. Multitek Engineers, No. 420/1, 3rd Cross, BTS Road, Appellant(s)

Wilson Garden, Bangalore – 560 027.

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, C.R. Buildings, Queen’s Road, Respondent(s)

Bangalore – 560 001.

With (i). Customs Appeal No. 20683 of 2014 (Shri Tukaram Rao Devraja Prop. of M/s. Multitek Engineers )

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 434 to 437/2013 CUS(B) dated 25.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.)

(ii). Customs Appeal No. 20625 of 2014 (Shri Tukaram Rao Devraja Prop. of M/s. Multitek Engineers )

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 431 to 433/2013 CUS(B) dated 21.112013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.)

(iii). Customs Appeal No. 20381 of 2014 (M/s. Light N Sound Forex Pvt. Ltd.)

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 431 to 433/2013 CUS(B) dated 21.112013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.)

(iv). Customs Appeal No. 20382 of 2014 (Shri. Ratan Das M/s. Light N Sound Forex Pvt.

Ltd.)

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 434 to 437/2013 CUS(B) dated 25.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.)

A PPEARANCE:

Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate for the appellants M/s. Multitek Engineers &

Mr. Tukaram Rao Devraja None for the other Appellants M r. M. Sreekanth, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MR PULLELA NAGESWARA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Final Order No. 20379 to 20383 /2026 DATE OF HEARING: 13.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 17.03.2026 PER : DR. D.M. MISRA These appeals are filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 431 to

433/2013 CUS(B) dated 21.11.2013 and Order-in-Appeal No. 434 to 437/2013 CUS(B) dated 25.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of intelligence that the appellant M/s. Multitek Engineers, a proprietorship concern and its proprietor Shri Tukaram Rao Devaraja, imported rubber belts and PVC conveyors for textile, granite, printing and other industrial consumers from overseas suppliers situated in China, Singapore and Korea by resorting to undervaluation of the same, investigation was initiated by DRI by conducting search and recording statements of various persons connected with the imports. On completion of the investigation, a show-cause notice was issued to them on 28.06.2012 proposing to enhance the declared assessable value from Rs.14,55,905/- to Rs.16,47,074/- in case of imports through Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore, demanding differential duty of Rs.49,351/- and another show-cause notice dated 28.06.2012 was issued for enhancement of declared assessable value from Rs.13,29,330/- to Rs.16,36,115/- in case of imports from ICD, Bangalore, demanding differential duty of Rs.82,368/- . In addition, proposals were made for imposition of penalties on individuals. On adjudication, redetermined value in each of the said imports had been confirmed along with differential duty with interest and penalty. Also, penalties were imposed on Shri Tukaram Rao Devaraja, Shri Sanjeev Yadav and Shri Ratan Das. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellants have filed appeals before the learned Commissioner(Appeals). The learned Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeals of M/s. Multitek Engineers, Mrs. Tukaram Rao Devaraja and Mr. Ratan Das; however, he allowed the appeal filed by Mr. Sanjay Yadav.

Hence, the present appeals.

3.1. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellants assailing the impugned orders has submitted that the entire case has been built upon only on the basis of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 which were retracted. These statements cannot be relied upon as the Department has not followed t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top