2008 (6) TMI 525 - AT - Customs

Challenging order of assessment - estoppel in law - valuation - Held that - we find no merit in the contention of the Revenue that the importer is estopped from challenging the order of assessment. The data now produced by the Revenue is in respect of import of polyster knitted fabric whereas goods in question are rejected stock lot of polyster knitted fabric. As the data now produced is not in respect of same or similar goods hence we find no merit in these appeals the same are dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the declared value of imported rejected stock lot of Polyster Knitted Fabric.
2. Whether the importer is estopped from challenging the enhanced value accepted during assessment.
3. Applicability of the principle of estoppel in taxation matters.

Analysis:
1. The respondent imported rejected stock lot of Polyster Knitted Fabric, and the Revenue enhanced the declared value during assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhanced value due to lack of evidence for rejection of the declared value by the respondent.

2. The Revenue contended that the respondent had accepted the enhanced value without protest during assessment, and hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have entertained the appeal. They also cited NIDB data and a Tribunal decision to support the claim that once an importer accepts the loaded value without objection, they are estopped from challenging it.

3. In response, the respondent relied on a Supreme Court decision stating that there is no estoppel in law against a party in taxation matters to challenge an assessment order. They argued that the imported goods were rejected stock lot, different from the goods in the data provided by the Revenue, thus justifying the challenge to the assessment order.

4. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court ruling, emphasizing that there is no estoppel in taxation matters against challenging an assessment order. They highlighted that importers may accept valuation to clear goods but can still challenge it later. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument, as the data presented was not for the same type of goods. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeals.