9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue procedure as laid down under Section 14 and Valuation Rules, especially when there is nothing on record to suggest that the transaction values declared by the appellant were not the price actually paid for the goods when sold for export to India. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the buyer and seller of the goods were related or price was not the sole consideration for sale - the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has given categorical findings to reject the enhancement of value by the assessing officer and there are no reason to interfere with the same - the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld, accepting the transaction value declared by the Respondent in the respective Bills of Entry. Classification of the goods imported - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has classified the goods under the Tariff Heading 8503 0090. Customs Tariff Heading 8503 covers parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of heading 8501 or 8502 and Custom Tariff Item 8503 0090 covers parts of electric motor (other than DC motor) . The electric motor is classified under the chapter heading 8501.In the Assessment Order, the Ld. Adjudicating authority has observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), after examining the issue, vide the impugned orders, set aside the orders of assessment; the value declared by the Respondent was accepted and the goods in question have been classified as Motor Controller under CTH 8503 0090. 6. Aggrieved from the said orders, the Revenue is before us. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that Rule 12(2)(iii) of the Custom Valuation Rules, 2007 which provides that the proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubts on the truth or accuracy of the declared value based on certain reasons which may include - (a) the significantly higher value at which identical or similar goods imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed; and has erred in interpreting Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 7.1. He submits that taking into account the submission of the Respondent and their failure to submit the documents, to substantiate their declared value, the transaction value cannot be determined under Rule 3(1) of the CVR, 2007 in terms of Rule 12(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble Apex Court in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. Videocon Industries Ltd. [2023 (384) E.L.T. 628 (S.C.)] and Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus., Ludhiana [2018 (364) E.L.T. 1090 (Tri. Chan.)] 9. Heard the parties. 10. We find that in respect of both the issues, with regard to valuation as well as classification, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the same and given his findings in the respective Orders-in-Appeal. 10.1 Regarding the issue of valuation, we find that the NIDB data, which the Revenue has relied upon for enhancing the value, is showing the assessed value and not the declared value. In these circumstances, the value declared in the NIDB data is not acceptable in the absence of NIDB data with regard to the declared value. Therefore, the enhancement made by the ld. adjudicating authority is contrary to law and we find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly struck down the enhancement in price. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant part of the findings of the lower appellate authority in the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. Kol/Cus(Port)/AKR/816-818/2020 dated 05.11.2020 on the issue of valuation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not genuine. I also find that the invoice as submitted by the appellant was examined/rejected by the lower authority in its impugned order. The assessing officer's remarks only stated that the declared value appears to be low. Also, the goods were not subjected to examination by any panel of experts or valuer. Moreover, In any event, there is no provision in the Act to say that in the absence of the manufacturer's invoice, transaction value cannot be accepted or is to be considered not to be genuine. There was therefore no reason for not accepting the transaction value. I also find that in the case of Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. versus C.C.E. S.T., Noida reported in 2017 (7) GSTL 82 (Tri.- All), Hon'ble CESTAT held as follows: 7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, we find that the Original Authority was directed by the Hon'ble High Court to pass speaking order on the enhancement of assessable value. We find that the Original Authority in its Order-in-Original dated 25-3-2015 has passed comments on the grounds of writ petition and did not properly examine the evidence available with the department required to be examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 988 and he assessed the value of the goods at 6,00,000 Japanese Yen per set. The said assessment has been upheld by the Tribunal. We do not find any infirmity in the said approach of the Additional Collector. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As per the reading of the brief facts and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. I find that in the said case, the importer i.e. M/s. Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. had imported the goods from the same supplier as M/s Hibotex Pvt. Ltd. and about the same time. However, in the instant case, no evidence has been provided by the lower authority which is contemporaneous to the import of the goods involved in the instant appeal. I also find that the department without citing any case of contemporaneous imports wants to enhance the value of the imported goods only on the basis of the NIDB data (if any) and goods which were assessed at higher values even though the payment of duty for the latter is made under protest. Accordingly, the facts of the instant appeal are distinguishable from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtant role in the fixation of the value of the goods keeping the true spirit of Rule-5 of CVR-2007. The same is not considered by the lower authority in the instant case. Accordingly, I find that the enhancement of values by the lower authority is arbitrary and without following any underlying legal principles read with Section 14 of the Act and Rule-5 of Customs Valuation Rule-2007. Thus the values have been enhanced without application of mind, in a mechanical manner without following Section 14 and valuation rules. As such the whole exercise of value enhancement is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. 11. We observe that the assessing officer has rejected the transaction values without any valid basis/reasons and without following the due procedure as laid down under Section 14 and Valuation Rules, especially when there is nothing on record to suggest that the transaction values declared by the appellant were not the price actually paid for the goods when sold for export to India. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the buyer and seller of the goods were related or price was not the sole consideration for sale. Also, we find that the Department has adduced no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... algorithms to perform its receptive, comparative and corrective functions. 12.2. As per the definition of 'Controller' reproduced above, we observe that the controller has multiple usages and it is nowhere discussed in the assessment order or declaration given by the Respondent that the said motor will be employed in e-rickshaw. There is no logical reasoning provided in the assessment order that the motor has sole function of operation in e-rickshaw and cannot be operated in other mechanical equipment. The lower authority in its assessment order gave various pictorial references regarding the usage of controller with the e-rickshaw but nowhere discusses the usage of the same with the motor as declared by the Respondent. 12.3. We find that the adjudicating authority has considered that the controller is used for the starting and stopping the motor, forward or reverse motion and in the regulation of speed. However, the controller cannot on its own perform the said functions in the e-rickshaw without the presence of motor in the said vehicle. Therefore, the controller can be employed in e-rickshaw only when the motor to which it is attached to is an intangible part of the vehi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity in its findings has not adduced any evidence that the goods imported by the respondent are the parts and accessories of e-rickshaw. We also observe that there is no declaration by the respondent that the said goods will be solely/principally employed in the manufacturing/making of the electric tricycle. As per the terminology of CTH 8708, the goods covered should be the parts and accessories of motor vehicles under CTH 8701 to 8705 and as per the point 3 of the Notes to Chapter XVII, the said goods having the description in two or more of the headings of those chapters is to be classified under that heading which corresponds to the principle use of that part of accessory. As per the reading of point 3 of Notes to Section XVII and the explanatory notes covering both CTH i.e. 8503 8708, the said goods are imported under the description of 'controller' and there is no declaration by the respondent that the said goods are the spare parts of e-rickshaw. 12.7. We also find that the controllers are not covered under the CTH 8708 as per the explanatory notes to Section XVII. It is also pertinent to note that the Notes to CTH 8503 covers the parts to be used with motor and as su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
