IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI Customs Appeal No. 41665 of 2014 (All arising out of Order in Original No. 28/2014 dated 7.5.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin)

M/s. Sri Abhisek India Appellant No. 2/800/U, Shanmuga Nagar S.N. Puram Road, Sivakasi – 626 124.

Vs.

Commissioner of Customs Respondent Custom House New Harbour Estate Tuticorin – 628 004.

With (i) Customs Appeal No. 41666/2014 (Ramdev Purba)

(ii) Customs Appeal No. 41667/2014 (Abhisek India)

(iii) Customs Appeal No. 41668/2014 (Ramdev Purba)

APPEARANCE:

Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM Hon’ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)

Hon’ble Shri Ajayan T.V., Member (Judicial)

FINAL ORDER NOS. 40217-40220/2026 Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date of Decision: 17.02.2026 Per M. Ajit Kumar, These appeals are filed against Order in Original No. 28/2014 dated 7.5.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin (impugned order).

2. The brief facts of the case are that based on intelligence regarding undervaluation in the import of slack wax and residue wax, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation against the importers M/s. Abhisek India (AI) and M/s. Sri Abhisek India (SAI). M/s. SAI is owned by Shri Ramdev Purba, while M/s. AI is owned by his wife, Smt. Vinod Purba. Both entities operated from the same premises in Sivakasi, engaged in the import and sale of slack wax and residue wax, and were effectively managed by Shri Ramdev Purba. Pursuant to search and seizure operations conducted on 30.09.2011, it was found that AI had filed Bill of Entry No. 4895987 dated 12.10.2011 for the clearance of residue wax. Examination by DRI on 14.11.2011 revealed that 71.530 MT of residue wax valued at ₹46.75 lakhs had been imported from M/s. Harmony Impex FZE, Dubai, UAE. The declared value appeared significantly lower than contemporaneous import prices, including prices charged by the same supplier to another importer, M/s. The Mehta Industries, Sivakasi. The goods were seized under the Customs Act, 1962. Samples were analysed by the Chemical Examiner, Customs House, Tuticorin, who reported that the product consisted of mineral hydrocarbon oil and mineral wax, containing 69.3% mineral hydrocarbon oil. DRI also examined three additional Bills of Entry (Nos. 4895489 dated 12.10.2011, 4966978 dated 19.10.2011, and 5345063 dated 30.11.2011) filed by SAI. The consignments, containing brown wax- like substances identified as heavy slack wax valued at ₹54.25 lakhs and ₹53.3 lakhs, were also seized due to undervaluation when compared with contemporaneous imports from the same supplier. Chemical examination confirmed that the first two consignments contained mineral wax with 20.3% and 21.3% mineral hydrocarbon oil, respectively, characteristic of slack wax. The third consignment had a mineral hydrocarbon oil content of 51.7%. The said seized goods were provisionally released as per the directions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, upon payment of applicable duties. In addition to the above live consignments, AI had filed 22 Bills of Entry for slack wax and residue wax between March 2008 and November 2011, all of which had been provisionally assessed pending test results. Based on the investigation, a Show Cause Notice was issued proposing rejection of the declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2009, redetermination of value under Rules 3, 4, and 9, and recovery of differential duty on 23 Bills of Entry filed by AI and 3 filed by SAI, along with interest and penalty on Shri Ramdev Purba. After adjudication, the Commissioner confirmed the differential duty demand with interest and imposed penalties. Hence this appeal.

3. The learned Advocate Shri A.K. Jayaraj appeared for the appellant and Ld. Authorized Representative Smt. O.M. Reena appeared for the respondent.

3.1 The Ld. Counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj submitted that:

A) Th