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

2024 (6) TMI 854

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nhancing the value. The general principles is that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not travel outside the record of the lower authority and make out a case which eve Revenue did not canvas. In TROJAN CO. LTD VERSUS RM. N.N. NAGAPPA CHETTIAR [ 1953 (3) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether relief not asked for by a party could be granted and that too without having proper pleadings. The Court held that ' It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Upholster Sofa. The adjudicating authority rejected the declared value under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules and redetermined the value at USD 924/- for 3+2+1 sofas in terms of the Standing Order No. 40/2012-Gr. 6 dated 18.8.2013. Aggrieved by the adjudication order, the appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who vide order impugned enhanced the value to USD 2112 per set as against USD 924/- per set and directed the department to reassess the bills of entry accordingly for recovery for differential duty. The appellate authority also ordered for recovery of all their bills of entry for the past five years by invoking section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for suppressing the correct values by the appellant. Aggr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncing the assessable value from USD 924 to USD 2112. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order the Appellant is before us.The Appellant submits that as per Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value being the price actually paid or payable for the goods in the course of international trade. In this regard, the Appellants rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2000 (122) ELT 321(SC) wherein, it is held that transaction value cannot be rejected unless any of the exceptions noted in Rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules was attracted. The Appellant submits that transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of prices ascertain .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case. [ Para No. 29 ] The impugned order hence merits to be set aside on this elementary principle of law itself. 6. Coming to the merits of the assessment, we find that as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as Customs Valuation Rules the transaction value is required to be accepted unless there are valid reasons for rejection of such value as provided in the said Act and Rules. Basing the value of impugned goods on a circular issued by the department or on the basis o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s on the Department. It is also a settled law that the Department is bound to accept the transaction value entered between the two parties unless they are able to disturb it by the application of law as set out in the Customs Act 1962 and the Rules framed there under. We find that taking recourse to extraneous evidence like instructions contained in Standing Order No. 40/2012-Group-6 dated 16.08.2012 is not permissible. The Department having failed to discharge its burden the impugned order is set aside on merits also. 8. We would like to bring to notice the Hon'ble Apex Court observations in The State of Jharkhand and others v. Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd and others [2021 (1) SCJ 131] wherein it was held that a decision taken in an arbit .....

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