9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Appellant, is in appeal before us against the orders of the lower authority in regard to the valuation of the car for purposes of levy of Import duties. 2. We have heard the appellant Shri O.P. Nagpal in person and Shri A.S.R. Nair, SDR, for the department. 3. Shri Nagpal was brief in his submissions and relied on his written grounds of appeal. These are summed up as under:- (i) It is submitted that the lower authorities have wrongly denied to him the normal trade discount of 15%, which is a general practice in all sales of motor cars by manufacturers to distributors or purchasers, although not exhibited in the invoice of the distributors or traders to the individual purchasers. It is stated that the car was purchased from a tradin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals) has already allowed the depreciation to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- which is more than adequate. 5. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by both sides. In the statement of facts filed by him, Shri Nagpal has admitted that the Customs had informed him that this particular model of the car was not listed in the International Car Catalogue 1984 available with the department. Thereafter, the appellant obtained the manufacturers price from M/s. Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. themselves. This was declared to be J-Yen 838,000. It is pointed out by Shri Nagpal that this is the manufacturers price from which normal discount and depreciation should have been allowed to him. This would have been a perfectly valid claim but for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,160/-. It is, therefore, claimed that in the light of these facts, 10% depreciation should have been given on account of damages. Repair costs are notoriously disproportionate to the original cost of motor vehicle and, therefore, cannot constitute a rational basis for valuation of repaired vehicle. In both the accidents, which this car met, obviously, there was some damage only to the body of the vehicle. It is not shown that there was any damage to the engine. Considering the total bill for the body work, the expenditure on that account cannot be considered too large. The Customs observed that the car did not bear any evidence of such damage. Nevertheless, the Collector (Appeals) has allowed deduction of Rs. 2,000/-, which we hold is qui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
