9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not tenable in these circumstances. Since the allegation in show cause notice was based on the similar type of goods in the case of M/s.Tanmay International [2017 (10) TMI 220 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], the above decision of this Tribunal in M/s.Tanmay International is squarely applicable to the present case, where it was held that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly concluded that the Department has not been able to adduce any evidence of contemporaneous import to support the value determined by the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/51482/2014 - A/62092/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 30-11-2017 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri A.S.Gill, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Tarun Kumar, AR ORDER Per : Devender Singh The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed bill of entry No.2126171 dated 31.7.2010 for clearance of 618 cartons of Coloured Self Adhesive Paper Tape and declared the assessable value @ USD 51.5 per roll. The goods were classified under Tariff Heading 39199090. The goods were supplied by M/s.CHANGZOHU HUAWEI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Division Bench of this Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the appellant in the case of M/s.Tanmay International, which was the basis for enhancing the value in the present appeal. He pleaded that since the facts are similar, the present appeal should also be allowed. He also relied on the following decisions: 1. Sur Gems Vs.CC, Mumbai-2014 (301) ELT - 429 (Tri.-Mumbai) 2. CC, New Delhi vs.Khushi Time Impex Pvt.Ltd.-2017 (348) ELT 691 3. Deepak Bansal Vs. CCE, Kanpur - 2012 (279) ELT 066 (Tri.-Delhi) 4. Sara Electro Acoustics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi - 2009 (240) ELT 0448 (Tri-Del) 5. CC(ICD) TKD vs.Polyglass Acrylic Mfg.Co.Ltd.-2014 (301) ELT 545 6. PNP Polytex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Nhava Sheva - 2015 (318) ELT 0649 (Ti-Mumbai). 7. House Full International Vs. CC, - 2013 (08) (LCX0162) 8. Puja Poly Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Calcutta - 2001 (131) ELT 0200 (Tri-Kol) 9. Mohan Sales (INDIA) Vs. CC, Calcutta - 2000 (121) ELT 0736 (Tri.) 10. Kishandas Sons Vs. CC, Mumbai 1999 (112) ELT 0227 (Tri.) 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r facts on record, the sample of goods imported by M/s.Mukesh Enterprises as well as sample of goods imported in this case were taken during market survey and the opinion that both goods were similar was supported by people from trade, who had a chance to look at both sample of goods. Not only this, overseas supplier of both goods for which samples were taken same i.e. M/s. CHANGZOHU HUAWEI REFLECTIVE MATERIAL CO. Ltd., China and bill of lading in both these cases described the goods as Self Adhesive Coloured Paper Tape and in both the cases the goods have been found to be Coloured Reflecting Sheet. The contention of the appellant that adjudicating authority has followed valuation in the case of M/s.Mukesh Enterprises without putting them to notice, is not tenable because show cause notice issued in this case categorically contains reference to the valuation in the case of M/s.Mukesh Enterprises and similarity of goods in both these cases. The contention of the appellant that Shri Joginder Singh, the main behind the imports in the case of M/s.Mukesh Enterprises has admitted that he imported the goods in question to help some Customs Officers in New Delhi and to help some CEIB offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of calculation of duty liability on the impugned goods in their case. The appellant No. 1 has objected to the valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority pleading that the department is barred from the jumping to valuation Rule of its choice under Rule 9 without first ruling out valuation under Rule 5 to 7 of the Valuation Rules. They have also objected to reliance placed on adjudicating authority on invoice No. HW-JBE 012 dt. 30.09.2009 of the same supplier contending that this is not an invoice but it is PROFORMA INVOICE as boldly written in capital letter on the said alleged invoice and that in the absence of actual import, proforma invoice/quotation cannot be made basis for enhancing value and that even otherwise the proforma invoice, without actual import relied upon by the department in respect of different goods both in quantity and quality wise. The Above objection of the appellant No. 1 are quite convincing and tenable because as the photocopy enclosed by the appellant No. 1 alongwith their invoice No. HW-IN301 dt. 30.09.2009 is infact Proforma Invoice and as per the terms and conditions mentioned on this documents dated Sept. 30, 2009, the shipment will be in M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
