9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Sandeep Goyal, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Sukhdev Sharma, Adv ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee-appellant under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 24.11.2014, Annexure P.13 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal ) in Customs Stay Application No.55163 of 2014 filed by the revenue in Customs Appeal No.54498 of 2014, claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether in facts and circumstances of present case, the learned Tribunal was justified in staying the operation of the order passed by Commissioner of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l period plus a premium of USD 35 per MT. Accordingly, the price against the above contract was settled at USD 7141.25 plus USD 35 premium i.e. equal to USD 7176.25 within the quotational period as per pricing certificate issued by the foreign supplier. Based on the above transaction, the appellant had imported a consignment of 100.828 MT copper cathode and filed bill of entry dated 3.11.2013 declaring transaction value of ₹ 7176.25 USD/MT as per invoice dated 6.9.2013, Annexure A.7. According to the assessee, the imported consignment is allowed to be cleared only after the custom duty as assessed by custom authorities is paid even on the excess value as suggested by the Assistant Commissioner. The total custom duty liable to be paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) dated 24.3.2014 with regard to the direction for reassessment of the bill of entry on declared value has been stayed. Hence the instant appeal by the assessee. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The appellant is aggrieved by the interim order dated 24.11.2014, Annexure A.13 passed by the Tribunal staying the operation of the impugned order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24.3.2014, Annexure A.10 whereby direction has been issued to the Assessing Officer for reassessment of the bill of entries accepting the declared value. 5. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value is arbitrary and unsustainable. The assessment made in the bill of entry is set aside and the lower authorities are directed to reassess the bill of entries accepting the declared value. The appeals stand disposed of in above terms. 9. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) nowhere gives any justification for accepting the declared value by giving the reasons for the same. In the absence of any cogent reasons, direction for accepting the declared value by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified. Accordingly, the Tribunal was right in staying the operation of the impugned order in appeal with regard to direction for reassessment of the bill of entry on the declared value. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
