9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has produced evidence that in 2006 the same model car was traded in India at ₹ 7,80,000/- and ₹ 8,30,000/-, the price at a reasonable correlation to the invoice submitted by the respondent at the appellate stage; however, the details of invoices were not given - the assessing officer has prima facie accepted the submission of the respondents that the value was declared wrongly at the time of import on the basis of original value in 2001 and the assessing officer has allowed depreciation of 58%. Therefore, the reasonableness of the assessing order is not in doubt. It is a clear case where the Commissioner (A) has entertained a new evidence even though the conditions under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 (1) (a) to (d) are not satisfi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery ₹ 30,000/-; metallic paint-Rs.30,000/-. The respondents have filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A) and have submitted another invoice dated 15.3.2005 showing the value of USD 6200. The Commissioner (A) held that though the assessing officer has correctly invoked the Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, they have failed to arrive at the price on the basis of which is available in India. The appellants produced evidence that in 2006, same model car was traded in India at ₹ 7,80,000/- and ₹ 8,30,000/-. The learned Commissioner (A) has accepted the value and accordingly, modified the assessing order. The Department has preferred an appeal against this order. 2. The Department has contended that as per Rule 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original invoice produced at the time of import indicated the price in Singapore dollars whereas the invoice produced at a later date was showing the amount in US dollars raising suspicion about the genuineness of the invoice. The Commissioner (A) held that the original authority had erred in rejecting the actual cost of ₹ 3,50,000/- which had been invested by the respondents in acquiring the vehicle, as no such claim had ever been made by the respondent before the assessing officer. Even assuming that the new invoice is genuine, the value at the prevailing rate in dollar would come to ₹ 2,72,490/- contrary to the claim of the respondent themselves that they have invested an amount of ₹ 3,50,000/-. Therefore, the departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents have submitted a fresh evidence to the appellate authority, which was not under consideration before the assessing officer. In this context, a reading of Section 5 of the said Rules is required and the same is reproduced as under: 5. Production of additional evidence before the [Commissioner] (Appeals). - (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Commissioner] (Appeals) any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the adjudicating authority, except in the following circumstances, namely :- (a) where the adjudicating authority has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or (b) where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
