9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e car to duty by taking price as $ 8599 based on Parker s Car Price Guide and allowed a discount of 15%. He further allowed a depreciation of 58% on the discounted price and after adding freight and insurance, the assessable value arrived at was Rs. 1,95,852/-. The Assistant Commissioner s findings are that the purchase order is not the invoice from the manufacturer; the discount of $175, has been extended without indicating the basis thereof; the invoice does not show the price at which car is ordinarily sold in the course of international trade and therefore, the assessable value was determined on the basis of value given in Parker s Car Price Guide 1996 in respect of the car of the year 1990. He relied upon the decision in Prem Kumar v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced by the importer himself is available and this document represents the true amount paid by him. He, further, submitted that instead of 58% depreciation, he was eligible for 66% depreciation as it is to be worked out upto the date of Bill of Entry and not upto the date on which car was given for transportation to India (5-2-1996); that depreciation has to be worked out on the basis of the age of the vehicle on the date of its Import into India. Reliance is placed on the decision in Dr. Subhas Chandra Reddy v. Collector of Customs, 1990 (47) E.L.T. 478 (T) in which it was held that In the absence of specific provision and details of Customs House Practice with reference to allowance of depreciation, we hold that irrespective of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the learned Advocate mentioned that the decision in O.P. Nagpal s case, supra has been reversed. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We agree with the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, that there is reason for adding the cost of car stereo to the price of the car. The appellant h s contended that no extra cost of the stereo was paid since it was one of the standard item of material to the car whose cost stood included in the price of the car. The Revenue has not brought any evidence to rebut this submission. Coming to the question of depreciation to be given, the appellant has claimed 3 %, 3% and 2 % for every quarter during the 2nd year, 3rd year and 4th year respectively, whereas as per instructions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l payment made by the buyers to the seller for the imported goods which is the transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules. This was the view of the Tribunal in Inderjit Singh Bawa case, supra, wherein it was held that Section 14 of Customs Act refers to value as the price at which imported goods are sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation. The price actually paid by the importer that is after taking into consideration the discount is to be taken as the transaction value unless it is proved by the Department that such a discount was not actually given. In view of this the discount has to be deducted from the price. 6. The appeal is disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
