2018 (4) TMI 599 - AT - Service Tax

Validity of assessment order - enhancement of value - non-speaking order - whether enhancement of declared value can be done without rejecting the same and providing contemporaneous value? - Held that - the Lower Authority have not brought of record any contemporaneous value in order to enhance the value declared by the appellant of the goods imported. In the absence of any such evidence to indicate that there was under valuation the Impugned Order is unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Assessment of imported goods, enhancement of value, duty liability, speaking order, contemporaneous value, onus of proof.

Assessment of Imported Goods:
The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal regarding the assessment of PVC Flex Sheet Rolls imported from China. The appellant declared the value as per the invoice, but lower authorities enhanced it. The appellant paid the differential duty under protest and cleared the consignment. Both the 1st Appellate Authority and the Lower Authorities did not agree with the appellant's contention.

Enhancement of Value and Duty Liability:
The Adjudicating Authority did not issue a speaking order for the enhancement of value. The enhancement took place on the assessment of the Bill of Entry for home consumption. The appellant did not dispute the duty liability on the declared value but contested the enhancement. The 1st Appellate Authority did not consider the key legal question of whether enhancement of declared value can be done without rejecting the same and providing contemporaneous value.

Contemporaneous Value and Onus of Proof:
The Tribunal found that no contemporaneous value was brought on record by the Lower Authorities to justify the enhancement. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof to establish the transaction value lies on the assessing authority. As the revenue did not provide any contemporaneous evidence to support the enhancement, the Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order, upholding the declared value and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Impugned Order and upholding the declared value of the imported goods. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing contemporaneous evidence for any enhancement of value and reiterated the onus of proof on the assessing authority.