9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce showing fluctuations in the international market of the goods in question. - We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. - C/784/2005 - A/1285/2009-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 23-6-2009 - Shri S.K. Mall, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - We heard Shri S.K. Mall, learned SDR appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The facts in brief are that M/s. Hindustan Inks Resins, Vapi, Gujarat (hereinafter called 'the respondent') imported 51.089 MT of Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was based on the half yearly contract No. COPL/MIBK/SASOL/108/2002(1), dt. 5-4-02. The supplier is also the manufacturer and the importer is also an established manufacturer. He also relied on the Chemical Trade Intelligence Bulletin for June, 2002 which indicated the price of MIBK of South Africa origin @ USD 818.11 PMT if packed in drums and an abatement of 15% if supplied in Bulk. This was at par with the declared price by the respondent. 4. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue filed the present appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who uphold the impugned order and rejected the Revenue's appeal. The present appeal stand filed by Revenue against the said order of Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is not satisfied with the explanation of the importer and the doubt still persists, the Transaction value can be rejected. After the rejection of the Invoice Price, the value of the goods has to be determined by following Rules 5 to 8 of the Valuation Rules sequentially. 9. In the instant case, the respondent had shown that they made a contract with the manufacturer for supply of the goods for a period of six months. The contract was seen and accepted by the adjudicating authority. Even the appellant Assistant Commissioner has not doubted the existence of such a contract. The only ground for appeal by the department is that similar goods were imported at a higher price at the time of import of the respondent. It may be seen that the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
