2008 (6) TMI 525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter is estopped from challenging the order of assessment. The data now produced by the Revenue is in respect of import of polyster knitted fabric whereas goods in question are rejected stock lot of polyster knitted fabric. As the data now produced is not in respect of same or similar goods hence we find no merit in these appeals, the same are dismissed
S/Shri S.S. Kang, Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRE .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pted the enhanced value and paid the duty accordingly without any protest, hence the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly entertained their appeal. The Revenue also submitted that as per NIDB data, the goods are being imported at higher value by other importers. The revenue also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Spinners v. CC, Lucknow reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 143 to sub .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se of Dunlop India Ltd. (supra) held that there is no estoppel in law against a party in taxation matters or challenging the assessment order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court particularly said that importer in order to clear the goods from customs may have accepted the valuation in accordance with the wishes of the authorities. We find that the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is fully applicable to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X