9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 171 - AT - CustomsNon inclusion of cost of bagging charges in the Bills of Entry - the appellant had imported Di-Ammonium Phosphate and carried out the bagging of the same inside the port area - Held that - Non-inclusion of the bagging charges in the value of Potash imported as the bagging has been done before out of charge in the Customs area - decided in favour of assessee relying on Garden Silk Mills Vs. UoI 1999 (9) TMI 88 (SC)
Issues involved:
- Inclusion of bagging charges in the Bills of Entry for imported goods. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad was filed by the Revenue against the inclusion of bagging charges in the Bills of Entry for imported Di-Ammonium Phosphate. The adjudicating authority had demanded differential duty from the respondent based on the inclusion of bagging charges. The first appellate authority set aside the adjudicating authority's order, relying on a previous judgment in the case of Indian Potash Ltd. The Revenue contested this decision, leading to the present appeal. Upon reviewing the case, the Tribunal found that the Revenue objected to the non-inclusion of bagging charges in the value of the imported goods solely because the bagging was done before out of charge in the Customs area. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had based their decision on a previous order in the case of Indian Potash Ltd., which had been upheld by the Tribunal in a separate appeal. The Tribunal cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Garden Silk Mills Vs. UoI to support the decision to uphold the first appellate authority's order. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was legally sound and in line with the relevant legal principles. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming the decision of the first appellate authority to exclude the bagging charges from the value of the imported goods. The judgment was pronounced in court, upholding the decision in favor of the respondent-assessee.
|
