9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against acceptance of declared assessable value - Invocation of Rule 9 without specific reference to sub-rules - Non-application of mind by original authority - Appellate authority's decision not to remand the case - Comparison with similar cases and remand decisions Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was filed by the department challenging the appellate Commissioner's order accepting the declared assessable value. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs had directed a 20% loading to the declared assessable value without following the provisions of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 9. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) found the Deputy Commissioner's order to be bad in law due to the non-application of mind and failure to follow the relevant sub-rules. Despite having the power to remand the case, the appellate authority chose to set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and allowed the assessee's appeal, directing acceptance of the declared assessable value in finalization of provisional assessments. In response to the appellant's grievance regarding the lack of remand, the Tribunal considered three other orders-in-appeal involving similar cases of other assessees. These cases were remanded to the assessing authorities, who accepted the declared values, and these decisions were accepted by the Department. Based on the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal decided to affirm the impugned order and reject the appeal, thereby directing the acceptance of declared assessable values in the finalization of provisional assessments on all relevant bills of entry. The Tribunal's decision was grounded in the comparison with similar cases and the efficient resolution of the matter without the need for remand. By upholding the acceptance of declared values, the Tribunal aimed to streamline the process and avoid unnecessary delays in finalizing provisional assessments, ultimately concluding the appeal in favor of the assessee.
|
