9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1256 - AT - CustomsMRP based valuation of imported goods - import of automobile parts, components and accessories - Valuation of Goods u/s 4A of CE Act Waiver of Pre-deposit - The department took the view that the importer should have declared RSP at the time of import - The imported parts/accessories were meant for sale in retail by the importer - The assessable value thereof should have been determined in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act Held that - Following ABB Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore 2010 (12) TMI 1027 - CESTAT, BANGALORE - there was no provision in the Customs Tariff Act enabling the proper officer of customs to determine RSP in a case where the importer did not declare RSP on the imported package and, on this basis, the demand of duty, interest and penalty were set aside Stay granted.
Issues:
1. Waiver and stay of differential duty, penalty, and interest demanded on imported goods. 2. Valuation of imported goods based on MRP/RSP. 3. Applicability of Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act and Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. 4. Prima facie case on merits. 5. Interpretation of previous judgments by the tribunal and the Supreme Court. Analysis: 1. The appellant sought waiver and stay regarding the differential duty, penalty, and interest amounting to Rs.1,10,29,877/- demanded on goods imported and sold to another company. The impugned demand was based on the contention that the imported goods were meant for sale in retail, necessitating valuation on MRP/RSP basis under the Customs Tariff Act and Central Excise Act. 2. The appellant argued that there was no prescribed procedure for valuing imported goods on MRP/RSP basis under Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act and that Section 4A of the Central Excise Act was inapplicable. Citing a previous decision, the appellant contended that demanding duty based on an arbitrarily determined assessable value was unsustainable. 3. The Commissioner (AR) supported the adjudicating authority's findings, referencing a stay order from a Mumbai bench case. The Commissioner argued that the prima facie view taken in the Mumbai case was based on a Supreme Court judgment, justifying its applicability in the present case. The Revenue's stance was upheld based on the facts and merits of the case. 4. The tribunal, after considering the submissions, granted waiver and stay based on a previous final order by the bench in a similar case. The tribunal emphasized that in the absence of a statutory procedure for determining RSP of imported packages, no RSP-based levy of CVD could be imposed. Consequently, the impugned demand of duty was deemed inconsistent with the tribunal's previous decision, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery against the demand and associated penalties. 5. The tribunal's decision was influenced by the precedent set in the ABB Ltd. case, emphasizing the absence of a statutory mechanism for determining RSP of imported goods. The tribunal's ruling aligned with the principle that without a specific provision for RSP determination, a reasonable procedure should be adopted, as highlighted in previous judgments by the tribunal and the Supreme Court. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues addressed and the tribunal's decision-making process, incorporating legal interpretations and precedents to support the final outcome.
|
