9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... House Agent M/s. Cafco Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd. The declared assessable value of the goods was Rs. 414/- per piece and the Revenue, relying on the E.mail originating from United Arab Emirates (UAE), enhanced the value to US $ 23 per piece which worked out to Rs. 1045/- per piece. The main contention of the assessee is that the transaction value has not been rejected in terms of Section14 of the Customs Act and the Department cannot enhance the value on the basis of E.mail originating from UAE, which is not contemporaneous evidence. It is neither invoice nor proof of import by another importer in India from the same country, place and time. It was also pointed out that the e.mail showed different models of the product from the one which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased on unrealistic terms without relying on contemporaneous import. 3. The learned SDR defended the order and submitted that the E.mail was emanating from a dealer of the same goods dealing in UAE and it can be accepted as contemporaneous in nature. 4. On our careful consideration, we find that the Department has not relied on the valuation in terms of the Bill of Entries noted in the Show Cause Notice which was at the rate of Rs. 820/-, Rs. 820/- and Rs. 836.28 in respect of different models of GEEPAS VCD viz. model GVCD 2518, model GVCD 2519 and model GVCD 512, while in the present case, the GVCD model is 2514. The department has given up the comparable prices as shown in the Bill of Entry cited in the Show Cause Notice but has proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was comparable in nature. In the present case, the only ground taken by the Revenue is the admission made by the appellant at the time of investigation by DRI agreeing for enhancement of value to US$ 325. However, in the reply to the show cause notice, he has retracted his admission and stated that the valuation adopted by the Revenue is not comparable with the goods imported from Dubai of Thailand origin. The department is attempting to compare goods with goods of Japanese origin. In terms of Sec. 14, the goods are required to be identical, imported at the same time and from same place. The evidence recorded by the Revenue is totally not of the same scope/brand, quantity, country of origin, place of import and the commercial level of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame being not acceptable. The impugned order is not legal and proper in the light of the citations and reasonings given by us. The same is set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Plethico Pharmaceuticals v. CCE, Indore - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 355 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it has been held that the internet offer prices is also not reflective of actually transacted prices, as the facts indicated that it has remained unchanged till the time of Show Cause Notice in the present case. 5. Respectfully following the ratio of the judgment cited by the learned Counsel and that of Plethico Pharmaceuticals, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
