9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity whereas the LAA before enhancing the percentage of loading from 30% to 65.125% ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to put for their defence. Further, the appellants have submitted entire records of third party invoice which has not been taken into consideration - If the LAA wants to enhance the penalty, fine or demand any duty such order shall be passed only after the appellant is given notice. In the present case even though there is no demand of customs duty but by enhancing the value of loading from 39% to 65.125% which has extra duty liability on the appellants and the enhancement had direct bearing on the increase of duty. It is mandatory on the LAA to follow principles of natural justice before proposing for en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Customs, Special Valuation Branch vide OIO No.21345/2013 dt. 23.7.2013 rejected the declared value and redetermined value and ordered for enhancement of invoice value to 39% under Customs Valuation (Determination of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and directed the Assessing Group to finalise the provisional assessment. The appellants preferred appeal against the said SVB order and the Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order dt. 26.8.2014 upheld the order and also enhanced the percentage of loading from 39% to 65.125% and rejected the appeal. 2. Heard both sides. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that they preferred appeal with a prayer to set aside the enhancement of value ordered by original authority whereas the LAA has e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entage of loading is not in violation of Section 128A (3) as it is not applicable to SVB cases and no fresh demand has been made. He also submits that appellant have not submitted any documents/evidences even before the adjudicating authority to prove their bonafide claim. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has correctly loaded by taking into consideration all third party imports. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the said order and in continuation he has only increased the percentage and it is only an arithmetical calculation which cannot be compared with enhancement of value or change of classification. 4. Heard both sides. On perusal of the adjudication order, we find that the DC (SVB) has finalized the valuation under Rule 2 (2) ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty. The Tribunal decision relied by the appellants in the case of Ambica Fashion Vs CCE (Supra) and Anand Kumar Gupta Vs CC Mumbai( supra) squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, we are of the considered view it is mandatory on the LAA to follow principles of natural justice before proposing for enhancement of value from 39% to 65.125% which the LAA has not followed in this case and the case needs to be remanded to LAA. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the issue on merits after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant. The appellant is directed to co-operate with the proceedings and produce all the relevant documents before LAA. The L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
