9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against determination of Present Market Value (PMV) of exported goods under DEPB Scheme.
Analysis: 1. PMV Determination: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the determination of PMV of Deep Well Hand Pumps exported under the DEPB Scheme. The Deputy Commissioner fixed the PMV at Rs. 7,405/- after a cost analysis, different from the declared value of Rs. 9,405/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Deputy Commissioner's analysis was irrelevant as it did not consider the actual goods exported by the respondents. She emphasized the need for proof of sale of similar goods to ascertain PMV, citing the Tribunal's decision in a relevant case. The Revenue contended that the Deputy Commissioner's market survey was based on a circular and scientific study, considering data provided by the exporter and prices of similar goods exported by others. 2. Legal Arguments: The learned Advocate for the respondent raised several points in defense, including that PMV matching the ARE-4 value should be accepted as per a Board's Circular. He also argued that the Show Cause Notice challenging PMV was issued beyond the specified period, and PMV verification should be done by SIB, not the assessing officer. Additionally, he highlighted the lack of comparable local goods for market analysis, the Tribunal's stance on officer's jurisdiction in cost analysis, and the DEPB credit basis on FOB value rather than PMV. It was noted that clarification from DGFT supported DEPB credit based on FOB value as per the EXIM Policy. 3. Decision: After considering the Circulars related to PMV determination and DEPB credit restrictions, the Tribunal found that the PMV and AR-4 value declared by the exporter were the same. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal's previous decision in a similar case, emphasizing the reasonableness of the declared PMV compared to the DC's determination. The Tribunal noted that the 20% variation was not excessive, indicating the declared PMV was acceptable. Consequently, the department's appeal was rejected, affirming the exporter's declared PMV as reasonable and dismissing the Revenue's contentions. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal arguments, relevant Circulars, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the determination of PMV for exported goods under the DEPB Scheme.
|
