9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility of Rule 4 to 8, and utilizing the red book price to arrive at the assessable value, whose validity has not been controverted in the appeal, he concurred with the adjudicating authority regarding the process followed for arriving at the re-determined value. He, therefore, rejected the appeal to the extent that it relates to assessable value. Impugned order upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue - decided against Revenue. - C/622/2012-SM - Final Order No. 20036 / 2017 - Dated:- 10-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Parashiva Murthy, AR For the Appellant None For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 17.11.2011 passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hundred and Sixty One only) in terms of Rule 9 of the Custom (Valuation) Rules 2007 and confiscation of the vehicle under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 was proposed. Penalty under Section 112 was also proposed. The Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 10.02.2011 rejected the declared value and re-determined the same at ₹ 6,15,161/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty One only) under Rule 9 of the said Rule. Further the said vehicle was confiscated absolutely under Section 111(d) (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further a penalty of ₹ 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) was imposed on the importer under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the facts in the original order as being incorrect. It would, therefore, appear that the original authority has correctly found that this is not a transaction between the issuer of the invoice and the importer and hence does not allow the invoice price to be considered as the transaction value as a mirror of the price which is the sole consideration of the transaction between the buyer and seller for export to India. The decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court cited by the appellant in re Eicher Tractors [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)] and in re Prodelin India (P) Ltd. [2006 (202) ELT 13 (SC)] are not applicable since they relate to procurement of materials in a commercial transaction between entities that have regular dealings on market terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
