9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, by holding that restricting DEPB benefit to PMV is totally wrong, when especially there is no wrong declared in the FOB value. In as much as the said decision covers the issue in full, we by following the same, set aside the impugned order. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - Appeal No. C/529/2010 - Final Order No. 51777/2016 - Dated:- 13-5-2016 - MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Meena, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R.K. Garg, DR ORDER PER: ARCHANA WADHWA The dispute in the present appeal relates to the valuation of the goods exported by the appellant under DEPB Scheme. 2. After hearing both the si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way of issuance of the show cause notice on 07/01/2009 calling upon them to show cause as to why the value of goods exported by them during January to March, 2004 should not be reduced from ₹ 55,74,498/- to ₹ 29,64,990/-, in terms of section 14 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and as to why the other actions like confiscation of the goods and also for imposition of penalty, should not be taken against them. The said show cause notice culminated into the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, reducing value of the export goods, as proposed in the notice as also imposing penalty of ₹ 4,31,593/- on the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 5. After going through the impugned order and after hearing both the sides, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st. They also produced copies of invoices of some local manufacturers where they themselves have exported the goods at the higher value. The invoices of the same manufacturer exporters, which stand adopted by the Revenue, were produced indicating that their export price is around 109 k.g. As such they contended that there is much difference in value of goods sold by local manufacturers in export markets as against the Sales Tax Form H. 7. We find that while conducting enquiries from the other manufacturers of SS utensils, there is nothing to show that the utensils manufactured by other manufacturers were comparable to the utensils manufactured and exported by the present appeallant. In the absence of any such comparison to show that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
