9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant being a SEZ Unit is required to pay the duty or the DTA buyer is required to pay the duty is a very contentious issue which needs to be dealt with applying the SEZ Act and Customs Act intendum. We find that the adjudicating authority has not given a proper finding on this issue. Second it is also observed that the Revenue has disputed the CAS-4 Certificate submitted by the appellant SEZ Unit in support of their declared value however the adjudicating authority has raised the dispute that certain expenditure such as R D etc. were not taken into consideration to arrive at the cost of the product in CAS-4, therefore he rejected the price arrived at on the basis of CAS-4 Certificate. We find force in the discussion of adjudicating autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also imposed penalties on co-appellant who are appellant s DTA buyers of the goods. The value of the goods cleared by SEZ unit is not proper and correct. It was contended in the impugned order that the appellant s SEZ unit who supplied the goods and the buyer in DTA are related persons, therefore, the price cannot be considered as a sole consideration. The price was enhanced by relying on the price of identical goods cleared by another SEZ M/s Purple Medical Solution Private Limited who are located in the same SEZ. The adjudicating authority have also discarded the CAS-4 Certificate given by the appellant on the ground that there are other expenditure such as R D etc. which were not taken into consideration to arrive at the value as per CA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot of variations such as size of unit manufacturing facility quantum of supply, turn over etc., between the appellant s SEZ unit and M/s Purple Medical Solutions Private Limited, therefore, the price of Purple Medical Solutions Private Limited cannot be adopted for the clearance of appellant s SEZ Unit. He further submits that as regard, the cost working i.e. CAS-4 submitted by the appellants, the same has to be accepted when no contrary price was brought on record. He further submits that the major amount of duty is IGST which is available as input tax credit to the buyer of the goods, therefore, as regard payment of differential IGST there is a Revenue neutral situation, on this ground also, the demand is not sustainable. He submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso observed that the Revenue has disputed the CAS-4 Certificate submitted by the appellant SEZ Unit in support of their declared value however the adjudicating authority has raised the dispute that certain expenditure such as R D etc. were not taken into consideration to arrive at the cost of the product in CAS-4, therefore he rejected the price arrived at on the basis of CAS-4 Certificate. In this regard, we find force in the discussion of the learned adjudicating authority however the appellant shall be granted an opportunity to explain the costing of the product arrived at in the CAS-4 Certificate. Therefore, on this count also, the matter needs to be reconsidered. The appellant have vehemently submitted that though the price of third p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
