9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same have been used against the appellant. There is no denial by the Revenue on the above facts. Hence, it appears that at least insofar as valuation of the thermometer in question is concerned, the re-determination of the value is not proper. The contemporaneous imports relied upon by the first appellate authority having not been put across for rebuttal, the impugned order suffers from serious legal infirmity, being violative of the principles of natural justice. The first appellate authority has undoubtedly proceeded beyond the scope of the appellate jurisdiction as prescribed under the statute and therefore, the impugned order to this extent cannot sustain. Insofar as the enhancement of value of Fingertip Pulse Oximeter is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above speaking order dated 07.09.2020 with a direction to redo the adjudication and issue a fresh speaking order after providing all evidences to the importer. 3.1 It appears that the matter was once again considered by the original authority, who, after hearing the importer, passed a de novo order No. 27/2021 ACC dated 11.01.2021 wherein he had once again rejected the declared value. The original authority thus re-determined/enhanced the value of both the Infrared Thermometer as well as Fingertip Pulse Oximeter Blue Colour in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 3.2 Against this order, the importer preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority vide the impugned Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of bills-of-entry and invoices that were relied upon by the lower authority. Further, it is contended that the first appellate authority has gone beyond the scope of the original proceedings; the appellant-importer had provided the commercial invoice issued by the supplier and the bank remittance details to prove the transaction value and therefore, the declared value was to be treated as the transaction value; and that there is also no finding that the supplier was a related party or that there was a flow of any additional consideration over and above the invoice price. 6. Per contra, Smt. O.M. Reena, Ld. Additional Commissioner for the Revenue, supported the findings of the lower authorities. She also invited our attention to the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
