2014 (6) TMI 949 - AT - Customs

Reasons for enhancement of assessable value - Not provided by the lower authority - Authority proceeded to deal with implication of Rule 12 of Valuation Rules when appellant did not disclosed the reason for enhancement of assessable value - Adjudication also could not given reasoning for why the declared value should be disturbed - Held that Law is well settled that right to remedy cannot be extinguished by confession. When there is obligation in the law, there is remedy prescribed. Commissioner (Appeals) in relying upon Rule 12(2) of his order appreciated that the appellant could have asked for a speaking order. He has also stated that the appellant did not choose to do so. It is surprising how appellate authority acted to the determent of justice when he himself is empowered to speak reason why enhancement was warranted. So, if there is any fault find of the assessee, it is not permissible to him to bury natural justice. Assessee has every right to know the reason why he is proposed to be dealt in the manner the order conceived to deal him. Therefore, Appellate authority s order is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues: Lack of reasoning for enhancement of assessable value, Right to remedy and obligation in law, Lack of speaking order by appellate authority, Legal infirmity in appellate order

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issue of lack of reasoning for enhancement of assessable value was highlighted. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not provided with a reason why the assessable value required an increase. The Tribunal observed that while the authority discussed the implications of Rule 12 of Valuation Rules and the steps to be followed by the customs officer, there was no explanation provided for disturbing the declared value.

Another issue addressed in the judgment was the right to remedy and obligation in law. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to remedy cannot be extinguished by confession, and when there is an obligation in the law, a remedy is prescribed. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that the appellant could have requested a speaking order but did not do so. The Tribunal criticized the appellate authority for not providing a reason for the enhancement, which was essential for upholding natural justice.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the issue of the lack of a speaking order by the appellate authority. It was noted that the appellate authority, despite being empowered to provide reasons for the enhancement, failed to do so. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant has the right to know the rationale behind any proposed actions against them, and the failure to provide a speaking order violated principles of natural justice.

Lastly, the judgment pointed out the legal infirmity in the appellate order due to the issues mentioned above. The Tribunal deemed the impugned orders as unsustainable due to the lack of reasoning, failure to provide a speaking order, and the violation of natural justice. Consequently, the appellant succeeded in all 43 appeals due to the legal infirmities in the appellate order.