9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al ICIS-LOR. The appeal filed against the above order enhancing the price and confirming the differential duty of Rs. 1,38,724/-, was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 2. We have heard both the sides duly represented by Shri W. Christian, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Dr. Manoj Kumar Rajak, SDR appearing for the Revenue. The appellant s contention is that they are regular importers of the said product, which is being used by them as raw material. In respect of the earlier imports also the Revenue has raised doubts about the correctness of the assessable value and the original adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands. However, on appeal against the same, Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al price of the goods was in the range of US $ 890-930 PMT CFR N.E. Asia. The price declared by the appellant is US $ 965 PMT CIF Kandla which is in conformity with the prevalent international price. The appellant has therefore, shown that the price charged by the supplier for the subject import was not only competitive but was also available internationally to any other buyer. They have rebutted the doubts which were in the mind of the Adjudicating Authority based on identical goods being supplied at a higher price during the relevant period. In such circumstances, transaction value cannot be rejected under Rule 10A or proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules, 1988. 3. In the present case also the appellants are taking the same stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bound to come down. It is well settled that the transaction value can be rejected only if situation mentioned in Rule 4(2) of Customs Valuation (DPIG) Rules, 1988 warrants. This was the ratio of the Tribunal decision in the case of Agarwal Industries v. CCE, Vishakhapatanam [2006 (193) E.L.T. 421 (Tri.) = 2005 (71) RLT 713 (CESTAT- Bangalore)]. We find that in the present case, there is nothing on record that the transaction value, as reflected in the contract is being influenced by extra commercial consideration or special circumstances particularised in Rule 4(2) and by taking note of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Basant Industries v. Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay [1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.)] and Eicher Tractors Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
