9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Application of Board Circular dated 19-11-1987 2. Rejection of transaction value 3. Consistency in valuation of similar consignments 4. Justification of freight charges 5. Timeliness of the show cause notice 6. Delegation of quantification task by the Commissioner Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application of Board Circular dated 19-11-1987: The appellant contended that the impugned order was vitiated as it was based entirely on the Board Circular dated 19-11-1987, which relates to the valuation of second-hand cars. The Tribunal clarified that the circular does not mandate the depreciation method but only suggests the quantum of depreciation if such a method is adopted. The adjudicating authority did not feel bound by the circular and considered the specific circumstances of the case, including the original invoices and the Chartered Engineer's certificate. Therefore, the Commissioner's decision to adopt the depreciation method was legitimate and reasonable. 2. Rejection of Transaction Value: The appellant argued that the order was vitiated as neither the notice nor the order provided reasons for rejecting the transaction value. The Tribunal found that there was no transaction in second-hand machinery, hence no transaction value was available. The appellant declared the value based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate, the basis of which was not disclosed. In the absence of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods, the adjudicating authority was justified in determining the assessable value using the depreciation method. 3. Consistency in Valuation of Similar Consignments: The appellant contended that the valuation in the case of three other consignments of second-hand machinery imported from Iraq had been accepted, and thus, the declared value in the instant case should also be accepted. The Tribunal noted that no reasoned orders had been passed in those cases, and the basis on which the values were accepted was not provided. Hence, the Commissioner was not precluded from examining the current case on its merits and arriving at an independent conclusion. 4. Justification of Freight Charges: The appellant's Bill of Entry and Freight certificate showed freight as US $40 PMT, while the Commissioner used the rate of US $71.25 PMT paid by M/s. Gammon India Ltd. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not examine all aspects before holding that the normal freight rate for the appellant's second-hand equipment would be US $71.25 PMT. Therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in increasing the freight charges. 5. Timeliness of the Show Cause Notice: The appellant argued that the show cause notice dated 14-7-1994 was belated and barred by time. The Tribunal noted that the original remand order from the Tribunal required action within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The exact date of receipt was not provided, and the appellant did not specifically claim that the notice was issued beyond the stipulated period. The Tribunal held that even if there was a short delay, it did not affect the validity of the notice or the proceedings, as the principles of natural justice were observed. 6. Delegation of Quantification Task by the Commissioner: The Commissioner's order did not quantify the assessable value and duty but directed that duty be calculated based on the assessable value. The Tribunal cited previous cases indicating that an adjudication order must quantify the assessable value and duty. Hence, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for quantification of the assessable value and duty, with instructions to grant a personal hearing to the appellant before passing the fresh order. Conclusion: The Tribunal confirmed all findings in the impugned order except the finding relating to freight charges. The order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner to determine the assessable value afresh, considering the appellant's freight charges and determining the insurance charges. The Commissioner must quantify the duty leviable and differential duty and provide the appellant with an opportunity for a personal hearing before issuing the fresh order. The appeal was thus allowed.
|
