9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Marble blocks. The application of Rule 8 of the Valuation rules by reckoning the Minimum Import Price as the base price is not an approved method under the Customs law and the valuation arrived at by this method is not correct - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/4061/05 - A/86040/17/EB - Dated:- 23-2-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri. Gajendra Jain, Advocate with Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Ajay Kumar, Joint Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair The Appeal is directed against Order-in- Original No.15/CEX/2005 dated 05.09.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune - II. The Appellant is an EO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1994 and Notification No. 2/95 - CE dt. 04.01.1995 warrants the valuation to be arrived in terms of Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported goods), Rules, 1988. That since the valuation cannot be done by resorting to Rule 5 to 7A of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules 1988 as provided under Rule 8 of the said Rules, the value needs to be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and the data available. That the cost of rough marbles as determined by the Custom authorities in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 at the time of importation has to be added to the expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cites the average price of Marble slabs of different manufacturers of different states during the period involved. He submits that the valuation method adopted by the revenue in terms of Rule 8 of Valuation Rule is incorrect as the same has no applicability. He submits that the duty has been demanded by invoking extended period of limitation which is illegal as there is no evidence of evasion of duty. He relies upon the judgment of Tribunal in case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. CC 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC), CC Vs. Instrumentation Ltd. 1999 (45) ELT 570 (TRI), Laxmi Colur Lab Vs. CC 1992 (62) ELT 613 as upheld by Hon ble Apex Court as reported in 1997 (90) ELT A183 (SC), Paras Fab International Vs. CCE 2010 (256) ELT 566 (TRI - LB). 4. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect. Even otherwise there is no comparison of Appellant s sale price with the market price during the relevant period so as to term the transaction value as incorrect. The price in the domestic market is driven by lot of factors and when the transaction is between the Appellant and unrelated buyer there are no reasons to doubt the said value. The demand of duty is solely based upon the ground and reasoning that the minimum import price fixed by the DGFT of the Marble Blocks is much higher and therefore the transaction value is not correct. We are unable to appreciate the same. We therefore hold that the impugned order does not sustain. In view of our above findings and discussion we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
