2011 (1) TMI 370 - AT - Central Excise

Assessable value - No speaking order - Circular No. 91/2003-Cus., dated 14-10-2003 - It was in these circumstances no detailed order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the importer having accepted the enhanced value without any protest, the appellant now cannot challenge the impugned order on the ground that no reasons given for the said loading - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Upholding of the impugned order by Commissioner (Appeals) based on the admission of value loading by the importer.
2. Challenge of the impugned order on the grounds of lack of detailed reasons for value loading.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), which affirmed the decision of lower authorities to enhance the value of imported bathroom fittings, shower panels, and bath tubs. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on the fact that the appellants had admitted the loading of the assessable value. The Commissioner noted that the appellants had accepted the assessment, paid the duty, and did not express any disagreement regarding the value loading. The Customs House Agent's remarks on the Bill of Entry confirmed the acceptance of value loading on behalf of the importer. Additionally, an oral market enquiry was conducted where the representative of the importer accepted the loaded value. The Commissioner justified the decision by referring to a Circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) clarifying that speaking orders are not necessary when duty enhancement is consented to by the importer. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, ultimately rejecting the appeal.

Issue 2:
The appellants challenged the impugned order on the basis of the lack of detailed reasons provided for the value loading. However, the Tribunal emphasized that since the importer had accepted the enhanced value without protest, the absence of a detailed order from the Adjudicating Authority did not provide a valid ground for challenge. The Tribunal highlighted the adherence to the CBEC Circular mentioned in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which justified the decision based on the importer's acceptance of the loaded value. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit and was accordingly rejected.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, the reasoning behind the decisions, and the legal principles applied by the Appellate Tribunal in affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order.