9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dispute over the enhancement of the imported machinery's value based on a Chartered Engineer's certificate. 2. Challenge to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the value enhancement. 3. Comparison of the machinery in question with a different machine mentioned in the Chartered Engineer's certificate. 4. Vagueness in the Chartered Engineer's certificates submitted by both parties. 5. Lack of inspection of the machinery for functionality due to dismantled condition. Analysis: 1. The appeal filed by the Revenue concerns the enhancement of the value of a second-hand imported machinery, '75' Bag-O-Matic Tyre Curing Press, from US $10,000 to US $20,000 per machine based on a Chartered Engineer's report. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the proceedings citing discrepancies in the certificate and lack of similarity between the referenced machine and the imported one. 2. The Revenue argues that the respondent's Chartered Engineer's certificate lacks clarity on the year of manufacture and market value, contrasting it with another machine's declared value of US $20,000 and actual market value of US $75,000. They claim the increase in value is unrealistic and support the value enhancement based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate. 3. The respondent's advocate contends that the referenced machine in the Chartered Engineer's certificate differs in size and type from the imported machinery, justifying the appeal against value enhancement. They argue that comparing unrelated machines is unjustifiable for value determination. 4. Upon review, the Tribunal notes vagueness in both Chartered Engineer's certificates. The respondent's certificate states the market value as US $36,000, while the Revenue's certificate mentions US $20,000 and US $75,000, indicating discrepancies and lack of clarity. Additionally, the certificates do not provide detailed information on the machinery's model, type, or cavity structure, making them unreliable for value assessment. 5. The Tribunal concludes that the Chartered Engineer's certificate relied upon by the Revenue is equally vague and unsuitable for enhancing the value of the respondent's machinery. The lack of inspection due to the dismantled condition further complicates the assessment, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. In summary, the Tribunal dismisses the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the inconsistencies and vagueness in the Chartered Engineer's certificates and the lack of comparability between the referenced machines, ultimately upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision.
|
