9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a shareholder in the parent company the transaction value needs to be rejected and loaded by 20% of the value. This loading was contested on merits by appellant, unsuccessfully before lower authorities. 3. It is argued by learned Counsel that the adjudicating authority took inordinate time to decide the matter despite giving all the documents. She draws our attention to the documents. 4. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of lower authorities. 5. It is necessary for us to reproduce the date chart produced by learned Counsel culled out from the records which is as under:- Dates Events 1999-00 The Appellants imported Ice-creams from Unilever Thai Holdings Ltd., Thailand. [Unilever, Thai] 16.06.1999 (p/31) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Appellants in light of various documentary evidence provided by the Appellants and further that the impugned order was passed without considering the evidence produced by the Appellants in an arbitrary manner and in violation of principle of natural justice. 27.05.2002 (p/60) Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Customs by referring to the above Order-in-Appeal requested to submit all the relevant documents 26.06.2002 (p/61) The Appellants submitted the following documents: (a) Copies of Bills of Entry (b) Copy of Questionnaire sent by SVB Mumbai (c) Copy of letter for grant of time to fill the questionnaire (d) Copy of covering letter dated 30.11.99 enclosing the questionnaire (e) Copy of letter dated 17.05.2000 (f) Copy of letter da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s; (b) that all grounds made are fresh and additional grounds which cannot be made before the Appellate Authority; (c) that no evidence other than produced before the Adjudicating Authority can be filed or produced before Appellate Authority Hence this appeal 5.1 It can be seen from the above that the adjudicating authority did not take up the adjudication despite submission of all documents and this point is also not noted by first appellate authority. In our considered view the action of lower authorities is totally deprecable that too in a matter wherein the question of valuation is involved. We are unable to fathom what was going in the minds of the lower authorities in not taking up the denovo adjudication after the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
