9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppliers and the appellants and other relevant particulars, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SVB, Chennai had ordered that assessment of the equipment and spares imported by the appellants shall be assessed by enhancing the declared value by its 30%. Where declared prices were the price list price or in cases where such goods were sold to third parties, assessment shall be made at the list price or the price to third parties. This order of the Deputy Commissioner, SVB, Customs House, Chennai No.399/03 dated 1.4.2003 was reviewed and vide Review Order No.5588/2006 dated 15.11.2006, the initial orders continued for a period till 14.11.2009. These SVB orders continued to govern the assessment of imports made by the appellants through Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore. The impugned order affirmed the rejection of transaction value and enhancement of the same by 30% of the declared value in all 21 Bills of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the original authority had merely followed the direction contained in SVB orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner, SVB, Chennai (OIO No.399/03 dated 1.4.2003) and the Assistant Commissioner, SVB, Chennai (No.399/03 dated 1.4.2003) and the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder on valuation of imports through ports outside Chennai. The orders passed in 2003 and 2006 were without jurisdiction and hence non-est. As held by the Apex Court in Priya Blue Industries [2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)], remedy against the assessment of goods in a Bill of Entry was available only through challenging assessment by way of appeal to the appellate authority. Their case was similar to the one in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vs. Hewlett Packard Ltd. [1999 (108) E.L.T. 221 (Tri.)] where the Tribunal had observed as follows:- "25. This leaves us to consider the last ground on which the revenue based their appeal viz., that since the appellant had accepted the earlier SVB Circular for a number of years, it is not open in law for them to now appeal against the loading of the assessable value after a passage of some time. We are not in a position to accept this contention at all because it is very clear that the principle of res judicata normally does not apply in taxation matters in such cases. This has been laid down in the case of West Coast Paper Mills as reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 91 as also in the case of Swaraj Mazda reported in 1995 (77) ELT 505. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector of Customs, Bangalore [1995 (76) E.L.T. 520 (Kar.)] The Hon'ble High Court held that the Assistant Collector (IAD), Madras had no jurisdiction for assessment under section 28 of the Customs Act of goods imported and cleared through ICD, Bangalore. Several decisions of the Tribunal passed following the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court and High Court were cited. They relied on the Apex Court judgment in Deepak Agro Foods vs. State of Rajasthan [2008 (228) E.L.T. 510 (S.C.)] wherein it was held as follows:- "Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such order would be without jurisdiction, null, non est and void ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of an authority goes to the root of the matter and strikes at its very authority to pass any order and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties." Valuation of the subject goods imported in 2008 on purported authority of SVB Chennai order of 2006 was patently illegal in view of the erstwhile rules amended with effect from October 2007 removing the concept of 'deemed value' and introducing 'transaction value' and new Valuation Rules in 2007. 5. We have heard both sides at length. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Court in the case of State of Orissa and Ors. vs. Brundaban Sharma and Anr. [1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases - 249]. The appellants had rightly relied on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Narain Bishwanath [1997 (96) E.L.T. 224 (S.C.)] wherein their lordships had held that valuation of the goods, they having been cleared in Bombay, could only have been decided by the Customs authorities in Bombay. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Devilog Systems India vs. Collector of Customs, Bangalore [1995 (76) E.L.T. 520 (Kar.) wherein it was held that while issuing short levy notice, a proper officer must be an officer functioning within the jurisdictional Collectorate where the import in question had been effected. It was too far fetched to hold that any officer upto the rank of Principal Appraiser stationed anywhere in India can issue notice under Section 28(1) of the Act to any importer who may have imported articles attracting customs duty in any part of India. This observation was made in the context of the appellants challenging the demand for short levy raised by Assistant Collector of Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
