9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was stated that the price was provisional, when such a declaration was absent in the bill of entry produced at the initial stage and hence recorded perverse finding? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in its findings that "in terms of Rule 5(1)(b) of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, the assessee is entitled to produce any evidence before the adjudicating authority, if that evidence was in existence and the E mail received from supplier could be produced before the Commissioner office? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in not giving any findings on issue raised by the Department with reference to the directions issued by Commissioner (Appeals) for authorizing amendment of Bill of Entry in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 or o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has filed this appeal to consider the questions of law recorded above. 5. Smt. Vanita submitted that CESTAT has erred in holding that the price was provisional and the same was known to the Department at the time of filing the bills of entry. It has further erred in holding that in terms of Rule 5(1)(b) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, assessee is entitled to produce any evidence before the appellate authority. 6. Shri Ravi Raghavan for the respondent opposing the appeal submitted that it is not in dispute that in the bills of entry lodged by the assessee at the first instance, the rate was mentioned as USD 715. It is also not in dispute that final product's price is fixed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. The pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has ordered the refund. 9. The first substantial question of law is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in holding that the price was provisional. Answer to the said question must be in the affirmative because the finding of the fact recorded by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is based on the finding of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The second substantial question of law is whether Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to produce additional evidence. We have perused Rule 5(1)(b) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. It permits an assessee to produce the evidence where he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
