9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n two weeks of its importation into UK. In a similar situation, we note that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Jay Polychem India Ltd. [2016 (6) TMI 433 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that considering the proximity of the dates involved in the shipment of the vehicle, the same cannot be considered as “second hand” at the time of import - in the present case there is no evidence of actual usage of the vehicle except an inference that the same has been registered only on 15/01/2009 when the manufacture in Japan is in August 2008. Valuation - rejection of value - similar/identical goods - Held that: - In the present case the appellant is said to have sold the car with much higher price in India. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the Revenue held a view that the imported car was cleared with mis-declaration of its nature and value. It was alleged that the car was not a new one and, as such, the concession available to the new cars should not have been extended to the same. Further, the value was sought to be enhanced based on the manufacturer s data available in their website for similar vehicle. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the main appellant and the second appellant to demand and recover the differential duty and impose penalties. The Original Authority upheld the views of the Revenue and confirmed the differential duty of ₹ 21,76,422/- and imposed penalties of ₹ 7 lakhs on the main appellant and further penalty of ₹ 2 lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accept the invoice value the correct position would have been to compare the value of assessment in respect of identical or comparable goods which were very much available with the authorities. Straight way relying on the internet price is not legally tenable. (c) The learned Counsel also contested penalties on the second appellant on the ground that he is nowhere connected and cannot be brought for penal action for abetting. 3. The learned AR supported the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that the vehicle was manufactured in August 2008 itself. As such, it cannot be said that the same is manufactured and registered on the same day namely 15/01/2009. The certificate issued in September 2009 by one Shri Gilliespe of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Jay Polychem India Ltd. 2016 (337) E.L.T. 510 (Del.) and in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Gurmeet Singh Soni 2016 (338) E.L.T. 25 (Del.) held that considering the proximity of the dates involved in the shipment of the vehicle, the same cannot be considered as second hand at the time of import. As already noted, in the present case there is no evidence of actual usage of the vehicle except an inference that the same has been registered only on 15/01/2009 when the manufacture in Japan is in August 2008. We note that there is no evidence of usage of the vehicle prior to import into UK. The Customs in UK has also assessed the vehicle as new at the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
