9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The appellants are manufacturing drug and for their usual course of business they imported 40 Kgs. of Ketoconazole USP XXII from English suppliers called Olympia Chemicals Ltd. London. The goods were sold at US $ 278 CIF. The goods were of Spanish origin and they were flown for Hamburg to Bombay. The suppliers by their communication at Page 32 stated that the goods were manufactured in their Spanish plant. The Department case is that at the relevant time the goods have been imported at CIF prices US $ 425 kgs. (Para 5 of the show cause notice Page 33). The invoice thereof on which reliance has been placed by the department was dt. 22-11-94 indicating the quantity of goods at 50 kgs. It does not clear from the document it is not cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rown Burk Pharm P. Ltd. it was at 266 US $. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner without discussing about the legality of the above three prices mentioned by the appellants. However, he took note of the fact that the steps taken by the department on the basis of the invoice dt. 22-11-94 namely Janssen Pharmaceuticals has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dt. 31-10-95 made in Order-in-Appeal No. 761/95-BCH dt. 31-10-95. The impugned order has been passed rejecting the contention of the appellants. Hence the present appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants contended that the approach of the both authorities below in rejecting the transaction value was wrong. It ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling the goods manufactured at Spain for a price of US $ 278 PMT CIF Bombay. Goods were air-lifted from Hamburg to Bombay. The comparable price is of not of the same quantity. In the case on hand quantity was 40 Kgs. Whereas comparable contract is of 50 kgs. The origin of goods is explicitly silent in respect of the compared products. The appellants have specifically mentioned about existence of comparable price available and they have referred to three transactions in the grounds of appeal filed before the Collector (Appeals) which Collector (Appeals) did not even consider the same in the impugned order. Moreover the invoice under which price was sought to be loaded was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) in some other case namely Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
