9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad with Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules-1988 after rejecting the provisions of Rule 4 & 5. - No merit in appeal - Decided against Assessee. - Miscellaneous Application No.-75153/15 & Appeal No.Cus.Ap.59/07 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75267/2015 - Dated:- 11-5-2015 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) And Dr. I.P. Lal, Member(Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri A.Baheti, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri S.K.Naskar, AC(AR) ORDER Per Dr. I.P. Lal. 1. Instant appeal is filed against the order-in-Appeal dated 19.2.2007 passed by Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Kolkata. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed bill of entry No.112658 dated 26.10.2004 for clearance of Palladium Catalyst (re-processe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.21/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002 under Sl.No.212B, condition 28B. Although the above notification related to zinc metal only, but the position being analogous, in the present case also the methodology of arriving at value should be adopted in the same manner. He however fairly agrees that the impugned notification does not cover the import of reprocessed Palladium. 4. As per contra the ld.A.R. for the Revenue submits that the aforesaid notification covers only the zinc metal and therefore the benefit of the same cannot be extended in the instant case, as the metal in question is Palladium and not zinc. He submits that the wording of the Notification cannot be stretched to give the benefit to an item which is not covered under the said No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abroad; It is the contention of the Appellant that they have exported earlier the spent catalyst to the manufacturer for recovery of Palladium metal and after the said processing the resultant Palladium catalyst was imported by them, in such a case the value of the said Palladium metal cannot be determined under the Customs Valuation Rules, but the same is to be determined as per methodology provided in the Notification stated above. On perusal of the Notification No.21/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002 and the corresponding entry under Sl.No.212B we find that the impugned Notification does not cover the Palladium metal and therefore we hold that the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly held that the benefit of the said Notification is not avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
