9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of US$ 428 per MT in the case of M/s. Kisco Casting Limited and US$ 370 per MT in the case of M/s. Dynamic Casting. The goods were examined in both the cases and in the case of M/s. Kisco Casting Limited, it was observed that the same were cut pieces of Iron and Steel having length more than as prescribed in ISRI code in respect of HMS category. Accordingly, a view was formed that the goods were re-rollable material of iron and steel and not HMS, as declared by the appellant. In the case of M/s. Dynamic Casting, the goods were also examined and it was found to contain besides 20% of HMS, about 80% re-rollable scrap. 3. On the above grounds, the Revenue enhanced the value of goods in both the cases on the basis of DoV data of simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her appellate forum. We are not in agreement with the above observation of Commissioner (Appeals). It is a matter of common experience that the importers, clear the goods, by payment of duty on the enhanced value, inasmuch as the goods imported by them are required and cannot be allowed to be retained by the Customs as the same incur demurrage and other expenses. It is again a fact of common knowledge that settlement of dispute take years and the imported goods cannot be allowed to be deteriorated in quality till the final out-come of the dispute. Inasmuch as the goods imported by the appellant were required in the assessee's factory, the same were cleared by them on payment of the duty on enhanced value and this fact by itself cannot be ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able value for the purposes of payment of duty unless the same is proved to be incorrect, on the basis of positive and tangible evidences. Apart from expressing doubt about the correctness of the transaction value, in the present case, the Revenue, upon whom onus is placed, has not produced any evidence to reflect upon the inaccuracy of the transaction value. In such a scenario, we are of the view that transaction value has to be adopted as the correct assessable value. 8. Further, it has been held in number of decisions that enhancement of value cannot be done on the basis of DoV data etc. without first rejecting the transaction value or without adducing any evidence of contemporaneous imports. There is no evidence in the present case to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue so as to enhance the value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaudhary Ship Breakers vs. CC, Ahmedabad - 2010 (259) ELT 161 (SC) has observed that price actually paid or payable has to be accepted as transaction value except in cases of exception carved out under the Rules. It is not the Revenue's case that those exceptions are available in the present case. In the case of CC, Chennai vs. Pushpanjali Silks Pvt. Limited - 2006 (202) ELT 80 (Tri.), it was observed that in the absence of any contention by the Revenue that any amount over and above, agreed and paid by the importer to supplier or that importer was related to the supplier or the prices paid was influenced by any extra commercial consideration, there can be no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emarks 1. C/60002/16 2539181 dt. 26.06.2013 HMS Re-rollable Scrap Misdeclaration Accepted vide importer letter dt.13.6.2013 2. C/60003/16 5750121 dt. 09.06.2014 HMS (without ISRI code) 20% HMS & 80% Re-Rolable Scrap Misdeclaration Accepted vide importer letter dt.19.6.2014 3. C/60004/16 2909605 dt. 26.12.2013 Re-rollable Material Re-rollable Scrap - 4. C/60005/16 4240674 dt. 01.01.2014 Re-rollable Material Re-rollable Scrap - 5. C/60006/16 2539198 dt. 26.06.2013 HMS (Without ISRI code) Re-rollable scrap Misdeclaration Accepted vide importer letter dt.13.6.2013 It is seen from the summary given above that in Appeal Nos. C/60002/2016, C/60003/2016 & C/60006/2016, the goods have been mis-declared in description, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resident to refer the matter to the third member to resolve the following issues:- POINTS OF DIFFERENCE Whether the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should be set aside and appeal allowed in Appeal No.C/60002/2016, C/60003/2016 and C/60006/2016, as held by Member (Judicial) OR Whether in view of the mis-declaration of the goods impacting the rate of duty and the value of the goods, the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should be upheld and appellants' appeal dismissed in Appeal No.C/60002/2016, C/60003/2016 and C/60006/2016, as held by Member (Technical). (DEVENDER SINGH) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (ARCHANA WADHWA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Per : Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar 12. Heard on the difference of opinion. 13. Hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
