Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (11) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ind that large number of cases which has been cited by the ld. Advocate, have been decided by this Tribunal rejecting the transaction value adopted by the Department having contrary to Section 14(1) of Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules. The order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA VERSUS M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRADING PVT. LTD. [ 2018 (12) TMI 738 - SUPREME COURT ] was not available before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Hon ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri Pradeep K Mittal and Shri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... owed so as to reject the transaction value. That the transaction value declared by the Appellant at the time of filing of bills of entry satisfied all the ingredients in Section 14(1) of Customs Act . That ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has failed to appreciate that once the ingredients as contemplated in Section 14(1) of the Customs Act are specified the transaction value cannot be discarded. That the appellant has paid the duty enhanced value as per assessment order, which was based on the NIDB data and in terms of guidelines issued by the DGOV in Alter Circular No. 14/2005 dated 16/12/2005 is not required to be followed, by the Commissioner (Appeal) being quasi judicial authority. That there is no ground to hold that the scrap consignments co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 06/07/2018 set aside the various orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) in case of Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd., Century Metal Recycling Pvt Ltd. and CMR Nikkei India Ltd. The last two being the same appellant company and hence the ld. Commissioner (Appeal) was bound to follow the decisions of Hon ble Tribunal in similar case in respect of the same party. This has not be done in the impugned order. That the valuation is not determinable under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules, 2007 on the ground that neither inquiry was conducted by the Department nor any information was sought from the Appellant, and hence incomplete violation of provisions of Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules. Also that the assessment order is appealable order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or Ltd., Haryana vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6492 of 1998 (h) Laxmi Colour Lab vs. Collector of Customs, CESTAT, Delhi Final Order NO. 379/92-A (i) SRR International vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, CESTAT, Ahmedabad Final Order NO. A/12702/2018 dated 04.12.2018 (j) Modern Manufactures vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, CESTAT, Delhi Final Order NO. C/A/50778/2018 dated 11.01.2018 4. Ld Departmental Representative, however, submitted that Commissioner (Appeal) has not committed any error as the matter is only remitted back to lower Adjudicating authority with a direction to decide the issue afresh considering the relevancy of transaction value arrived by the Department under the provisions .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issioner (Appeal) has made open remand to the lower Adjudicating authority to decide the valuation depending on the contemporary import price available with the Department within three months from passing of the impugned order. At this stage, we find that large number of cases which has been cited by the ld. Advocate, have been decided by this Tribunal rejecting the transaction value adopted by the Department having contrary to Section 14(1) of Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules. This should have been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order which were agitated before him, however, placing reliance on the decisions of Hon ble Madras High in case of M/s Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt Ltd. vs Commissioner, Ch .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates