9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that PLATT prices themselves could not be made the basis for enhancement of value, set aside the enhancement ordered by the lower authority - In the impugned order, there is no discussion as to which of the four bills of entry were adopted as the basis of enhancement of value of the subject goods and as to the reasons therefor. In any case, the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without considering the case law cited by the party is not acceptable inasmuch as, in the Tribunals remand order, there was a specific direction to consider the case law - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Application No. C/Stay/300/09 in Appeal No. C/883/05 - Order No. A-292/10/CSTB/CII - Dated:- 13-8-2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had accepted assessable value in the range of USD 325-340. An appeal filed by the assessee against the said order-in-original was allowed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), against which department filed an appeal with this Tribunal (Appeal No. C/37/02), which was allowed by way of remand vide order No. A/347/WZB/04/C-II dated 01/06/2004. In the said remand order, this Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had not had a chance take into account the evidence of contemporaneous import. This Tribunal therefore set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), to take into account the cited case laws as well as the bills of entry relating to contemporaneous import and pass a speaking order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PLATT prices and contemporaneous imports of identical/similar goods. This Tribunal, after taking the view that the Standing Order dated 03/12/99 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, did not have any legal backing vis-`-vis decision of this Tribunal to the effect that PLATT prices themselves could not be made the basis for enhancement of value, set aside the enhancement ordered by the lower authority. A few other decisions were also cited by the present appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) but none was considered. On the other hand, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) chose to follow the Standing Order of the Chief Commissioner, which was found by the Tribunal to be devoid of legal backing. We further find that four bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
