2017 (3) TMI 359 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - enhancement of assessable value - Held that - the assessable value has to be arrived at on the basis of the price which is actually paid and in a case the prices is not sole consideration or if the buyers and sellers are related persons then after establishing that the price is not sole consideration the transaction value can be rejected and taking the other evidences into consideration the assessable value can be arrived at. Such exercise has not been done in these cases on hand. Therefore, we reject the enhancement of assessable value in respect of the Bills of Entry which are involved in all the appeals being decided and we restore the assessable value as declared by the appellant in said Bills of Entry - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
- Assessment of duty on imported 'Aluminium Waste & Scrap'
- Rejection of self-assessment by the Assessing Officer
- Re-assessment of assessable value by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs
- Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against Order-in-Appeal
- Enhancement of value through Bills of Entry without formal Order-in-Original
- Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting appeals challenging assessment
- Grounds of appeal based on Customs Act provisions
- Failure to establish enhancement of assessable value in accordance with the law

Analysis:
1. Assessment of Duty on Imported 'Aluminium Waste & Scrap: The appellant imported 843 consignments of 'Aluminium Waste & Scrap' and self-assessed the goods based on transaction value. The Assessing Officer rejected the self-assessment, leading to a re-assessment of duty. The Hon'ble High Court directed a speaking order on the reassessment, resulting in an Order-in-Original enhancing the assessable value. The appellant appealed this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Re-assessment of Assessable Value: The Deputy Commissioner of Customs enhanced the assessable value for duty assessment, which was challenged by the appellant through appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed common orders for multiple appeals, rejecting them on the grounds of challenging assessments through a single appeal. The appellant further appealed to the Tribunal against these decisions.

3. Grounds of Appeal based on Customs Act: The appellant's grounds of appeal included arguments related to various varieties of 'Aluminium Waste & Scrap,' the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act for arriving at assessable value, and the authority of the Directorate General of Valuation in determining value. The appellant contended that the enhancement of assessable value was not in accordance with the law.

4. Failure to Establish Enhancement of Assessable Value: The Tribunal, after considering the contentions and records, found that the Original Authority did not properly examine the evidence for enhancing the assessable value as directed by the High Court. The Tribunal emphasized that assessable value should be based on the actual price paid, and if the price is not the sole consideration or if the parties are related, then the transaction value can be rejected. Since this examination was lacking in the cases at hand, the Tribunal rejected the enhancement of assessable value and restored the value as declared by the appellant in the Bills of Entry.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside all the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, allowing the appeals of the appellant. The appellant was granted consequential relief as per the law. The decision was made based on the failure to establish the enhancement of assessable value in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act and legal precedents.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the assessment of duty on imported 'Aluminium Waste & Scrap' and the rejection of the enhanced assessable value, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment.

← Previous Next →