9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bill of Entry No. F-188 dt 25/7/2008. The Act of the respondent J K Cements Ltd showing a higher C&F Value for the similar goods under Bills of Entry No F.187 gives an indication to the genuine nature of transaction based on the contracts as respondent has not hidden any facts from the department - Decision in the case of CC Vishakapatanam vs. Aggrawal Industries Ltd [2011 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and in the case of CC Chennai vs Pushpanjali Silks Pvt Ltd [2006 (3) TMI 515 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] followed - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. : C/261/2012 DB - ORDER No. A/11059/2014 - Dated:- 27-5-2014 - MR.M.V. RAVINDRAN AND MR. H.K. THAKUR, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri J Nair (AR) For the Respondent : Shri C Hari S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd vs. CC., Bombay [1998(98)ELT.292 (SC)] in support of his argument that value prevailing on the date of import is to be taken and not the value as per the contract date. 3. Shri Hari Shankar (Advocate) and Shri S Sunil (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Knitting Pvt Ltd vs. CC., Bombay (Supra) stands differentiated as per the judgment of CC Chennai vs Pushpanjali Silks Pvt. Ltd [2006(202) ELT 80 (Tri. Chennai), upheld by Supreme Court as reported as 2007(207)ELT A100(SC) and CC Vishakapattanam vs Aggarwal Industries Ltd [2011(272)ELT 641(SC)]. It was his case that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aneously, i.e., goods which came to India by the same vessel on the same date. No parallel was found between the case of Andhra Sugars (supra) and that of Rajkumar Knitting Mills (supra). The decision in Andhra Sugars (supra) was followed by the same Bench in the case of Agarwal Industries (supra), wherein the price of identical goods contemporaneously imported into India by the same vessel was ignored and the contracted price (transaction value) was accepted as the basis for determining the assessable value of the goods in question. 4.1 In the light of the above observations the declared value was held to be acceptable and accordingly appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected in view of the earlier case laws Andhra Sugar Ltd vs. Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e performed on time because of which extension of time for shipment was agreed to between the contracting parties. It is true that the commodity involved had volatile fluctuations in its price in the international market but having delayed the shipment, the supplier did not increase the price of the commodity even after the increase in its price in the international market. This fact is also proved by the actual amount paid to the supplier. There is no allegation of the supplier and importer being in collusion. It is also not the case of the revenue that the transaction entered into by the respondent was not genuine or undervalued. Nor was there a mis-description of the goods imported. It is also not the case of the revenue that the subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
