9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts in the matter. The appeal arises from Order-in-Original No. 12/2004 (RP) dated 31-5-2004 by which the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Visakhapatnam has finalised the Bills of Entry as noted in the order and has confirmed the demand by the impugned order. The Commissioner has ordered for determination of the transaction value under Rule 4 read with Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 by taking the total payments received by M/s. Korea Heavy Industries Construction Company Ltd. (M/s. Doosan Heavy Engineering and Construction Ltd.) under the Offshore Equipment Supply Contract and Offshore Engineering and Technical Assistance Contract after proper adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been passed by the adjudicating authority. However, that order has been substantially modified by the Tribunal (President Bench) in case of Dabhol Power Company v. Commissioner of Customs, Pune - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 354 (Tri. - Del.). It is his submissions that if the ratio of the judgment of Dabhol Power Company (supra) is taken into consideration, then the demands are required to be substantially reduced. It is his further submissions that the finding of the Dabhol Power Company case was based on the evidence which was available in that case. If the ratio of the judgment is taken and the evidence on record pertaining to the appellants, then the demand is not sustainable in the matter and the declared value is required to be accepted. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was passed, therefore finding is applicable to the present case. He submits that the enormous papers which have been produced by the appellants as evidence does not appear to have been considered by the Commissioner. He did not oppose the prayer of the appellants for remanding the matter, as it will save much time. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find a lot of force in the submissions made by the ld. Senior Counsel in the matter. The Commissioner has not indicated in the impugned order that he has taken over the proceedings of Assistant Commissioner of Customs for the purpose of finalisation of Bills of Entry. This has not been clarified to the appellants. From the record, we see that the Assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r case. This submission requires careful consideration. In the present case, we have seen violation of principles of Natural Justice as the paper books consisting of about 817 pages of evidence has not been considered by the Commissioner. Therefore, the impugned order is not just and legal. On this ground alone, the impugned order is to be set aside as it is not a speaking order. In view of the pleas raised by the appellants and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for de novo consideration to be decided in the light of principles of Natural Justice. The Commissioner is directed not to en cash the Bank Guarantee till the disposal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
