9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompared the value of contemporaneous import of similar goods before passing his order. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that para 6 & 7 of clearly dealt the issue in detail and concluded that both for the raw material as well as for the pressing machine there is no contemporaneous imports as moulds are tailor made. - Revenue coming to the Tribunal against new grounds is not maintainable. We find that it is the Revenue who preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the adjudication (SVB) order. Nothing prevented the Revenue to raise any number of grounds when the department reviewed the OIO and filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). This is the case of SVB order and not confirmation of demand of custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VB) vide his order dated 24.05.2012 held that the importer/ respondent and the foreign supplier were related under Rule 2(2) of CVR and held that the invoice price shall be accepted as transaction value and directed the assessing group to finalize all the pending provisional assessment and held that this order is operative for three years up to 23.05.2015. The department reviewed AC s Order and preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), on the ground that the original adjudicating authority has not compared with contemporaneous import of similar goods before passing the OIO and the original adjudicating authority should have examined the contemporaneous price/value for the subject goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the Chartered Engineers certificate on the deductive value arrived had accepted the transaction value. He drew attention to the grounds of appeal by the department against the OIO which is at page 26 of the paper book and submits that the department preferred appeal only on one ground that the adjudicating authority has not compared with contemporaneous import of similar goods before passing the order. He submits that no other ground was raised before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order at para 5 6 has clearly examined the grounds and held that there is no contemporaneous import and upheld the OIO and rejected the Revenue appeal. He further submits that the department while reviewing the said o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the adjudicating authority has not compared the value of contemporaneous import of similar goods before passing his order. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that para 6 7 of clearly dealt the issue in detail and concluded that both for the raw material as well as for the pressing machine there is no contemporaneous imports as moulds are tailor made. The respondents contention is that the department has raised two new grounds before this Tribunal, and the grounds (b) and (c) which are reproduced as under:- (b) In Para 5 of the OIA, it is stated that the pressing machines are purchased from various unrelated manufacturers in their country and the same have been supplied to the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Court had set aside the order of the Tribunal and Tribunal has to consider the additional grounds made by the Revenue. Para 2 3 of the said decision is reproduced as under:- 2. The appellant manufactures what it calls Halls Ice Mint tablets . It classified these tablets as Ayurvedic medicines under Heading 3003.30 of the Central Excise Tariff. It was issued a notice to show cause why these tablets should not be classified under Tariff Heading 3003.19 as patent or proprietary medicines . The Assistant Collector, after hearing the appellant, held that the tablets were patent or proprietary medicines classifiable under Heading 3003.19. In appeal by the appellant, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the tablets were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery. This would have given the appellant the opportunity to place on record such material as was available to it to establish the contrary. It is impermissible for the Tribunal to consider a case that is laid for the first time in appeal because the stage for setting out the factual matrix is before the authorities below. 3. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal under appeal is set aside and the appeal filed by the Excise authorities before the Tribunal is dismissed. It shall be open to the Excise authorities to issue to the appellant a notice to show cause why the tablets should not be classified as items of confectionery under Heading 17.04, provided it is open to the Excise authorities to do so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
