9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 164 - AT - CustomsValidity of proceedings - present impugned order confirmed on the strength of the proceedings in case of the DRI notice issued - Held that - the proceedings in the instant case depending on the proceedings of an another wherein DRI had issued SCN vide F. No. DRI/SRU/INC-06/2007 dated 16.11.2007, which was adjudicated by OIO No. 3/Commr/ICD-Valvada/JNPT/2012 dated 29.3.2012, which stand remanded to the original adjudicating authority by the Tribunal vide Order No. A/11279 to 11288/2013 dated 10.10.2013. It is prudent to remand the instant matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide the matter - appeal allwoed by way of remand.
Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order, Valuation of imported goods, Allegations of undervaluation, Contemporaneous value of identical goods, Remand to original adjudicating authority, Relying on value from firms controlled by Shri K.C. Malkani. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent had imported a consignment of goods and parts of the Air Conditioner, which were examined on a first check basis. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged undervaluation of the goods, and the original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) classified the goods under CTSH 84159000 as part of an Air Conditioning machine but remanded the matter for valuation to the original adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority determined the value based on the import of identical goods by other importers and included the cost of packing and labor. The Revenue challenged this order, claiming reliance on the value from firms controlled by Shri K.C. Malkani, who was associated with the appellant firm. The Counsel argued that the value determination was legal and proper based on the earlier DRI notice and subsequent Tribunal orders. The Tribunal noted that the proceedings in the current case were dependent on another case where the DRI had issued a show-cause notice dated 16.11.2007, which was adjudicated in OIO No. 3/Commr/ICD-Valvada/JNPT/2012 and later remanded to the original adjudicating authority by the Tribunal. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the current matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide in line with the Tribunal's decision in the case of K.C. Malkani and others. As a result, the appeal was allowed by way of remand. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the interconnection between the current case and a related matter involving the DRI notice and subsequent Tribunal orders. By remanding the case to the original adjudicating authority, the Tribunal aimed to ensure consistency and alignment with the previous decisions in the related case. This comprehensive analysis addressed the issues of valuation, alleged undervaluation, and the reliance on values from associated firms, providing a clear direction for further proceedings in the matter.
|
