9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Revenue and uphold the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against the revenue. - C/CROSS/47/2011 in C/2340/2010-DB - Final Order No. 20341/2016 - Dated:- 7-2-2016 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member and Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Mr. Pakshirajan, AR - For the Appellant Ms. Neetu James, Advocate - For the Respondent ORDER Both the parties have been heard in detail. The matter concerns with the valuation of the goods imported by the respondent viz., M/s. CMC Ltd., Mumbai. 1.1. The importer viz., M/s. CMC Ltd., imported the following goods through Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore, as per the prices declared in the bill of entry which is as given in the table below. Description Qty. Unit price in US $ Total value in INR as declared in B/E Invoice No. Pre Processor Core Licences 48 set 3191.75 78,74,920 16-01331-11 HP Integrity BL860C 2p/4C 1.6/18 MB Proc 8 set 20085.75 82,59,50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and legally correct. 3. Respondent viz., M/s. CMC Ltd., Mumbai, has been represented by the learned advocate Ms. Neetu James, have mainly argued as follows: 3A. IDENTICAL IMPORTS WERE ASSESSED ADOPTING THE DECLARED VALUE AND CLASSIFYING THE GOODS UNDER 8471 The declared price is an agreed consolidated price commonly known as bundled price. It was a quotation of M/s. Hewlett Packard Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd. (HPI), which was accepted by M/s. ITC, who are their customers for the present goods. In terms of the purchase order placed by M/s. ITC on the respondents, they were to supply equipment for a price of ₹ 9 crores including the customs duties. A portion of the equipment of the value of ₹ 4,79,90,644/- was meant for supply to the Bangalore Centre of ITC.The balance portion of the equipment of the value of ₹ 4,20,09,356/- was meant for supply to the Kolkata Centre of ITC. The equipment of the value of ₹ 4,20,09,356/- which was meant for supply to the Kolkata Centre of ITC, was imported by the Respondents through Kolkata Air Cargo vide Bill of Entry No. 536571 dated 26.12.2008.The said Bill of Entry was assessed by the Customs authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only in exceptional circumstances enumerated in the proviso to this sub-rule. In this regard they relied upon the following decisions: i. Eicher Tractors Vs. CC - 2000 (122) ELT 321(SC) ii. Virat Enterprises Vs. CC - 2001 (132) ELT 692 iii. Jindal Strips Ltd Vs. CC - 2001 (173) ELT 570 iv. [Affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court - 2003 (156) ELT A385 (SC)] v. Polychem Ltd Vs. CC - 2001 (135) ELT 1061 The Respondents submit that as the exceptions enumerated in Rule 3(2) are absent in the instant case, the transaction value of the goods are not liable to rejected. Further the department has not demonstrated that contemporaneous imports were made at a higher price than that declared in the impugned invoices. They placed reliance on the following decisions: i. CC Vs. South India Television Pvt. Ltd reported in 2007 (214) ELT 3 (SC) ii. Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI reported in 2009-TIOL-16-SC- iii. CC Vs. JD Orgochem Ltd. reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) 3D. HIGHER RATE OF DISCOUNTS ALLOWED IN NORMAL COURSE OF TRADE IN THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET The Respondent undertook supplies in INR to the Central Board of Excise a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (A) is quite elaborate. We have carefully gone through the discussions, analysis and the case laws quoted in the impugned order. The impugned order as concluded is as follows: . the transaction value declared by the appellant shall be accepted in view of the identical nature of goods with similar price supplied to CBEC; clearance of identical goods supplied from the same supplier at the same time for the same client at Kolkata Custom house; the goods being a package deal and negotiated price as evidenced by the various documents produced by the appellants; the declaration of value for insurance purposes and the judicial decisions on this count, other various judicial decisions of the higher judicial forums including the Hon ble apex court discussed supra holding that mere transaction value . 4.1. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order set aside the Order-in-Original dated 21.7.2009 of the Deputy Commissioner and hold that the assessment be done as per the declared value in line with the assessments done in Kolkata Customs House. 5. We find that there has not been sufficient evidence with the Department to challenge the declaration made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
