2016 (12) TMI 704 - AT - Customs

Valuation - enhancement in declared value - Held that - we find that from the letter dated 29.10.2002, which is on the letter head of the respondent, it appears that the order was received by the respondent in the year 2000 itself. In the said letter, the respondent requested for an appealable copy of the Order-in-Original dated 23.6.2000. However, this letter was not available before the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the aforesaid letter, the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent had not received the order dated 23.6.2000 become incorrect. Since in the second appeal, the Order-in-Original is based on the first order dated 23.6.2000, therefore, the second order is consequential to the first order dated 23.6.2000. We are therefore of the considered view that both the matters should be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) shall reconsider both the case in the light of the respondent letter dated 29.10.2002, which is to be verified with Dy. Commissioner of Customs, SVV, whether this letter was submitted by the respondent and genuineness of the same. Accordingly, after such verification, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) shall pass a fresh order on limitation as well as on merit of the case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal setting aside Order-in-Original dated 23.6.2000 enhancing declared value by 20%.
2. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal setting aside order of Dy. Commissioner dated 29.3.2005 finalizing value enhancement.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The Revenue appellant argued that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable due to a significant delay of almost five years between the original order dated 23.6.2000 and the appeal filed in 2005. The appellant contended that the respondent had received the original order in 2000, as evidenced by a letter dated 29.10.2002, which was not presented before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant requested a remand to reconsider the limitation issue based on the evidence of the letter.

Issue 2:
The respondent contended that they were not aware of the letter dated 29.10.2002 and maintained that they received the original order in 2005, justifying the timeliness of the appeal. The Tribunal examined the letter dated 29.10.2002, which indicated that the respondent had indeed received the original order in 2000, contrary to the respondent's claim. As the second appeal was based on the first order dated 23.6.2000, the Tribunal concluded that both matters should be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to verify the authenticity of the letter with the Dy. Commissioner of Customs and issue a fresh order on both limitation and merit after such verification.

The Tribunal disposed of the appeals by remanding the cases for further consideration, emphasizing the importance of the evidence presented and the need for a thorough review of the issues at hand.