9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n thereof was produced before the CEGAT for the first time, does not in our opinion cure the defect. So far as the manufacturer's certificate is concerned, neither in the orders of the Customs authorities nor in the order of the CEGAT is there a finding that the price mentioned in the said certificate was not the correct one or that the certificate was obtained collusively from the foreign manufacturer. We may also point out that there is no finding by the Customs authorities that the price which has been adopted by the Customs authorities was referable to a car of the identical make, model, facilities or gadgets as the one imported. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the CEGAT and of the Customs authorities cannot be supported. We, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alore. The Customs authorities assessed the value of the car at Rs. 53,305.44 and assessed duty at 150% (Rs. 79,958.16), Auxiliary duty at 40% (Rs. 21,322,18) and Additional duty of Customs (Rs. 24,915.75), in all, Rs. 1,28,188/- (sic). According to the appellant, the above assessable value was arrived at by giving 15% discount as against normal discount at 20% otherwise available in the Middle East Countries and depreciation was worked out only at 35.5% instead of 38%. The appellant paid the duty under protest on 8-12-1984 and obtained clearance of the vehicle on the same date. Appellant wrote a detailed letter on 30-1-1985 requesting refund of alleged excess amount of duty paid by her. 4.A show cause notice dated 7-6-1985 was issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Car Catalogue or Auto Car Magazine. Appeal was dismissed in B.Cus., 859/87, dated 18-11-1987. 6.The appellant filed an appeal before the CEGAT contending that the price-lists referred to in the order of the Collector were not disclosed to the appellant, there was no short levy of duty and the additional levy was time barred. The appellant contended that there was no reason not to accept the invoice price submitted by the appellant or Volvo's letter dated 5-11-1990. However, the CEGAT dismissed the appeal by Order No. 560 of 1988(A), dated 21-11-1988. It is against the said order that this appeal has been preferred under 749(L) of the Customs Act, 1982 (sic). 7.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. He sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rice mentioned in the magazine by the Customs authorities must be held to be illegal. Further it is clear that though this point was taken in the grounds of the appeal before the appellate authorities, a copy of the magazine was never made available to the petitioner. The fact that an extract of the relevant portion thereof was produced before the CEGAT for the first time, does not in our opinion cure the defect. So far as the manufacturer's certificate is concerned, neither in the orders of the Customs authorities nor in the order of the CEGAT is there a finding that the price mentioned in the said certificate was not the correct one or that the certificate was obtained collusively from the foreign manufacturer. We may also point out that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
