Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (5) TMI 209 - CESTAT, MUMBAIValuation (Customs) - Transaction value - Vessels - Breaking up of the ship - reduction in price - HELD THAT:- It is quite clear from the facts of the Jalyan Udyog [1993 (9) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT], that the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered in the context of the proviso to the exemption notification and therefore, its ratio has no application in the present case in which admittedly all the ships were old and imported for the purpose of breaking up and it is not as if any one of them was imported as an ocean-going vessel and thereafter a decision was taken to break/scrap it. The learned Appellate Commissioner has, therefore, misapplied the ratio of Jalyan Udyog and Salim Abbas Bhai [1997 (7) TMI 147 - SC ORDER] to the facts of these cases. The Appellate Commissioner while setting aside the impugned orders of assessment and allowing the appeals with consequential relief has overlooked that after the provisional assessment a final assessment was required to be made and therefore, it should have been left to the assessing officer to make the final assessment orders u/s 18 in all these matters. Under Section 18 of the said Act, the proper officer is empowered to direct that the duty leviable on the subject goods may pending the production of the relevant documents or furnishing of information or completion of the test or enquiry be assessed provisionally if a security is furnished as deemed fit by the proper officer, for the deficiency, if any. Under sub-section (2) of Section 18 the duty leviable on the goods in question is required to be assessed finally in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the present matters while setting aside the final assessment order, on the ground that the reduced price reflected the correct transaction value, the Commissioner has overlooked the aspect that the final assessment was required to be made by the assessing officer u/s 18(2) of the said Act. We, therefore, while dismissing all the appeals for the reasons mentioned above, direct that the assessing officer will now make the final assessment orders u/s 18(2) of the Act and in the light of this judgment. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
|