9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s never been furnished to the respondent or to the appellate authority nor it is available as of now with tribunal - Even the backward calculation done to arrive at CIF value has not been explained by revenue - hold that the value cannot be enhanced in such arbitrary manner without any evidence X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar/identical frames were available in the local market @ Rs. 600/- per frame, whereas MRP declared by the importer for the subject goods was in the range of Rs. 80 to Rs. 90/- per frame. On the basis of value ascertained in the local market, the CIF value for the said frame was calculated @ Rs. 178.95 per frame by following Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The matter was adjudicated wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n his own handwriting wherein he has admitted the undervaluation and this statement cannot be discarded as per Supreme Court decision in the case of Naresh J. Sukhwani v. Union of India - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.), Gobind Lal v. CC, Jaipur - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 515 (Tri.) and Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.). 4. Ld. Advocate for the respondents submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was later on retracted. We further notice that though this is the sole evidence, the Revenue has not gone even by this evidence as the price disclosed in the said statement has not been accepted but a new price has been arrived at on the basis of some market enquiry, the details of which are not available. Copy of market enquiry has never been furnished to the respondent or to the appellate author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
