9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T] , where it is held that in case any person is aggrieved by any order, which would include self-assessment, he has to get the order modified under Section 128 or under other relevant provisions of the Act. Thus, the appellant has got legal right to challenge the assessment order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Adoption of NIDB data - HELD THAT:- It is the settled position of law that NIDB data cannot be the only basis for rejection of the declared value. There is no justification to compare the goods imported by different importers. Even as per the Order-in-Original, adjudication authority held that the goods are not branded goods and identical goods are not available for comparison. There is no admissible evidence forthcoming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s deemed to have attained finality. Further, the appellate authority also held that the value adopted by the assessing officer is based on similar goods from other countries and under comparable quantity during similar period. Thus, appeals were rejected. Aggrieved by said order, present appeals are filed. 2. When the appeals came up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the method of valuation adopted by the respondent is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that; they had imported the goods earlier at a higher price and the value of such goods are highly fluctuating and also differ based on various facts including size, time, etc; therefore no comparison can be made without providing the details of val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Agarwal Foundries (P) Ltd.(supra), which was approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner Vs. Agarwal Foundries (P) Ltd. reported in 2020 (371) E.L.T. A295 (S.C). Learned counsel further submits that as per the impugned order, the adjudication authority itself held that as items are not branded goods, identical goods are not available for comparison. Moreover, appellant had tried to impress upon the adjudication authority by furnishing details of imports, but however the same has not at all been considered by Adjudication authority. 4. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for Revenue, reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submits that the value w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason for the Assistant Commissioner to reject the declared value is solely based on the NIDB data and other than this, we do not find any contemporaneous imports of similar goods declaring higher value having been referred to, by the said authority. Moreover, it is a fact borne on record that the appellant had tried to impress upon the Assistant Commissioner by furnishing imports of similar goods by various other importers, the value of which almost matched with that of the appellant before us, but however the same has not at all been considered by the said authority. 9. It is the settled position of law that NIDB data cannot be the only basis for rejection of the declared value. There is no justification to compare the goods imported by d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
