Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 417 - CESTAT MUMBAIValuation for levy of CVD - Re-determination of value under Central Excise - Levy of additional duties of customs - assessment of duties of central excise on the basis of retail selling price - re-labelling of the specified goods would amount to manufacture after import - HELD THAT:- The assessment of duties of central excise on the basis of ‘retail selling price’ was intended to dovetail enforcement of the levy with the statutory oversight contemplated by the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (and the substituting Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011) and its adoption, for parity, in assessment of ‘additional duties of customs’ was ineluctable - Though Central Excise Act, 1944 did empower re-valuation with effect from 1st March 2008 in the specifically enumerated circumstances, there has been no corresponding empowerment under either Customs Act, 1962 or Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The exercise of such power in the proceedings leading to the impugned order is, thus, without authority of law. The mandate by which an assessing authority was enabled, under Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, to revisit the value declared in the entry under section 46 of Customs Act, 1962 is limited to assessment of ‘basic customs duty’ under section 12 of Customs Act, 1962. Any revision in the assessable value for determination of ‘basic customs duty’ would correspondingly impact ‘additional duties of customs’ too - Recourse to rules of valuation framed under the authority of section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 was, thus, precluded and the sanctity of ‘declared’ ‘retail selling price’ protected from being re-determined. As re-labelling of the specified goods would amount to manufacture after import, it is not that recourse was unavailable to remedy any breach of parity. The adoption of ‘retail selling price’ of other re-sellers and, that too, while the impugned goods were yet to be cleared for home consumption on the presumption that the importer intended to enhance the ‘retail selling price’ at the point of sale appears to be a mis-direction on the part of the original authority and the confirmation thereof, by the first appellate authority, bears the same taint as to warrant the setting aside of the impugned order. The demand for differential duty liability, confiscation and penalty set aside - Appeal allowed.
|