9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act, landed value was revised without adding the duty element and the Appellant have been held liable to pay differential ADD of Rs.5,43,000/-. The Appellant filed appeal against this decision. Revenue also is in appeal in view of the fact that Commissioner (Appeals) held that no interest is payable. Held that- We find that the notification clearly defined in the Explanation as to what is the landed value, it clearly stated that the landed value is assessable value as determined under the Customs Act, 1962 and includes all duties except those which are specified therein. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that the assessable value is determined under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and the assessable value under Section 14 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de all duties of Customs except those liabilities under Section 3, 3A, 8B and 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA). Since the clearance had been allowed, adding the Customs duty liability under Section 12 of the Customs Act, landed value was revised without adding the duty element and M/s. K.C. Cements Industries Ltd. (KCC) have been held liable to pay differential ADD of Rs.5,43,000/-. M/s. K.C. Cement is in appeal against this decision. Revenue also is in appeal in view of the fact that Commissioner (Appeals) held that no interest is payable. 2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of KCC submitted that interpretation given by the impugned order to the Notification is not correct and actually what the notification means is that l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d includes all duties except those which are specified therein. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that the assessable value is determined under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and the assessable value under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 does not include any of the duties. Therefore, the landed value as defined in the notification cannot include the Customs duty leviable. As regards claim of levy of ADD amounts to discrimination, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly taken note of the Notification No. 41/97-Cus., dated 30-4-97 which provides exemption from ADD and has rightly observed that the appellants had not claimed exemption under that notification. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
