9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 518 - AT - CustomsValuation - enhancement of value - Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Good) Rules, 2007 - Held that - the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeals of the respondent on the ground that no valid reasons were assigned by the assessing authority in rejecting the declared value furnished by the respondent herein. Further, he has also held that the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been appealed against by Revenue and thus, has attained finality. Therefore, he held that as per the direction contained in the order dated 30.09.2013, the Department should have granted refund to the respondent. On going through the impugned order, the stand taken by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the appeal of the respondent is in confirmity with the statutory provisions - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Validity of the assessing authority's rejection of declared value - Finality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Granting of refund to the respondent Validity of the assessing authority's rejection of declared value: The case involved the import of fresh Orchid Cut Flowers, where the respondent declared the price at 0.03 USD per stem, but the assessing officer enhanced it to 0.07 USD per stem. The respondent paid duty based on the enhanced value. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the assessing officer to issue speaking orders, failing which the respondent could seek refund. The assessing authority rejected the declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules and re-determined the value at 0.07 USD per stem under Rule 4. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the respondent as no valid reasons were provided for rejecting the declared value. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the stand taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) was in line with statutory provisions, and therefore, the findings could not be disturbed. Finality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals): The order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Department to grant refund to the respondent if a speaking order was not issued within 15 days. The Tribunal observed that this order had not been appealed against by the Revenue and had attained finality. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Department should have granted the refund to the respondent as per the direction in the order dated 30.09.2013. The Tribunal found that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this matter was in accordance with the statutory provisions, and therefore, upheld the grant of refund to the respondent. Granting of refund to the respondent: The respondent had filed a refund claim after not receiving a speaking order from the assessing authority. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, leading to the respondent filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order dated 03.06.2016 allowed the appeals of the respondent with consequential relief. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the case records, found no merits in the appeals filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the decision to grant refund to the respondent. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the appeals of the respondent based on the validity of the assessing authority's rejection of the declared value and the finality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the granting of a refund to the respondent.
|
