9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect conclusion by discussing all the aspects of the matter - Consequently the claim for reduction of value fails and therefore the impugned orders have to be upheld - C/159 & 160/05 - A/1964-1965/2010-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 15-12-2010 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Mr. B.S.V. Murthy Represented by: - Shri Bharat Parekh, (Director) Represented by: - Shri R. Nagar, SDR Per: MR. B.S.V. Murthy: The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows. A dead vessel MV Hatan was anchored on 19th October 2001 at Alang. memorandum of agreement was reached between Haryana Ship Breakers Ltd. (first buyer) and the foreign seller of the vessel Alwaha Investments Ltd., Port Louis (hereinafter referred to as foreign seller) on 22nd Oct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Hydraulic power pack 2 sets; 5. Purifiers 3 sets; 6. Air compressor main 1 set and emergency compressor 1 set; and 7. One anchor with full chain. 2. The first buyer Haryana Ship Breakers Ltd. withdrew from the agreement quickly stating that the vessel contents were not according to the agreement. Thereafter the appellant as a second buyer purchased the vessel for a consideration of US$ 474880.50. The department did not accept this price and the appellant paid the duty as per the original price under protest and filed a refund claim. The issue of eligibility for refund and valuation travelled up to the Tribunal in the first round of litigation and this Tribunal vide order No.A/792-293/WZB/2004/C-II dated 31.08.04 reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . reported in 2006 (195) ELT 3 (S.C.) would not be applicable to the present case since in this case unlike Udayani Ship Breakers Ltd., the seller was a foreign seller and the buyer was Indian. Further he also submitted that this was not the case of reduction in the price in the MOA but a fresh MOA was entered into between the appellant and the foreign seller. He also submitted since that the transaction value was genuine and the reduction was due to non availability of certain items and therefore the appeal has to be allowed and refund claim also has to be allowed. 5. We have considered the submissions made by Shri Bharat Parekh. First of all we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has observed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
