9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Entry was assessed after loading the value as per contemporaneous import data (NIDB Data) and the same was accepted by the appellant and clearance was affected on payment of duty. Also the appellant produced contract in which no date has been mentioned nor any period of validity has been mentioned. The invoices are totally bereft of any mention of contract number. It is significant to note that they have imported only 113x20 containers of Ceramic tiles from supplier but, as per contract they are supposed to import 60x20 containers per month. The contract does not indicate the Port of import for the consignment. The rate in the contract would not show whether it is FOB/ CIF basis. It is particularly noted that the certain size of tiles im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f finally assessed 4 Bills of Entry and directed the appellant to pay differential duty of ₹ 16,51,605/-. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that non-filing of appeal in similar cases for the earlier 4 Bills of Entry would not bar them to file appeal in other Bills of Entry. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Gangadharan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin - 2008 (228) ELT 497 (SC). He further submits that the appellant produced the contract in respect of present 13 Bills of Entry. It is submitted that burden of proving the under valuation lies on department. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006. The assessing officer assessed the said 4 Bills of Entry after loading the value as per contemporaneous import data (NIDB Data) and the same was accepted by the appellant and clearance was affected on payment of duty. In the present appeal, the appellant produced contract. The adjudicating authority observed that no date has been mentioned on the contract nor any period of validity has been mentioned. The invoices are totally bereft of any mention of contract number. It is significant to note that they have imported only 113x20 containers of Ceramic tiles from supplier but, as per contract they are supposed to import 60x20 containers per month. The contract does not indicate the Port of import for the consignment. The rate in the contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be applicable. In the case of Aryan Electronics vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi-IV (supra), the Tribunal observed that burden of proving under valuation lies on department. In the present case, the department proceeded on the basis of contemporaneous import of the impugned goods at higher rates, as evident from 4 Bills of Entry at or around the time of import of impugned goods. So, the said case law has no relevancy in the present case. Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules provides that if the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any imported goods, he may ask the importer of such goods to furnish further information including documents or other evidence and if, after recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
