9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned goods are capable of multiple uses and therefore, the benefit of the said exemption Notification is not available to the appellants. While stating that the impugned goods have multiple uses, the Commissioner has not relied on any expert opinion or test report. The Commissioner s views cannot be taken very seriously, because without proper evidence gathered through investigation, such opinions, will not survive scrutiny of judicial fora. The appellants have stated that the impugned items have been sold to actual users only and in the Nhava Sheva port, the benefit of exemption notification was given to them. All these averments have not been properly examined by the Commissioner. Moreover the show cause notice itself has not proposed de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. No. 110 List 3A of Notification No. 20/99-Cus., dated 28-2-99 which exempted insoles and mid-soles or sheets if they are imported for use in leather industry and such exemption is restricted to actual users of goods. According to Revenue, there was mis-declaration of value and description of the goods. In Calcutta Customs House, M/s. Bharath Leather Company imported PU leather cloth of Taiwanese origin on 6-5-99 and value accepted for purpose of assessment was US$ 2.00 per meter CIF. It was also felt that the impugned item is not exclusively to be used for insole and mid-sole in leather industry. Further, the appellants were found to be traders and not actual users. Therefore, the revenue proceeded against the appellants by issue of show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on record, the bills of entry of other importers. The Commissioner ignored the submissions of the appellants and passed the impugned order. (iii) The Commissioner relied on price in respect of the clearance effected by M/s. Bharath Leather Industry which was US$ 2 per meter and on the basis of the said documents, issued a show cause notice for refixing the value at US$ 2 per meter. (iv) Even though in the recital to the show cause notice there is an allegation that concessional rate of duty under notification No. 20/99-Cus., dated 28-2-99 is only restricted to actual users of the goods, the said allegation has not been taken to show cause as to why the benefit under the aforesaid notification should not be granted. (v) Except for the al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice, there has been no mention of any situation mentioned in Rule 4(2) of Customs Valuation Rules for rejecting the transaction value. The department has not produced any document to show as to why the transaction value should be rejected. On this ground the appellants relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rock Wood Products v. C.C. [2006 (74) RLT 271] wherein the Tribunal has followed the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractor Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 S.C.]. Further the ruling of the Tribunal in the case of Keveeyam Company v. CC, Cochin [2006 (194) E.L.T. 447 (Tri-Bang)] is also relied upon. (x) The appellants produced documents to show that during the relevant period transaction value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as insole for footware. Definitely the goods in question were not designed and manufactured for exclusive use as footware. The goods are not having any special characteristic to identify them as meant for exclusive use in the manufacture of footware. The suppliers have in the invoices mentioned that the sheets are for insole. This has been done at the behest of the importers in order to wrongly avail the benefit of exemption notification 20/99. The following case law was relied by the JDR wherein it is held that when identical goods of the same specification produced in the same country of origin for an import and the value is found to be higher in nature, the transaction value is not acceptable Pan Asia Enterprises v. CC, Bombay [1995 (79) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner s views cannot be taken very seriously, because without proper evidence gathered through investigation, such opinions, will not survive scrutiny of judicial fora. The appellants have stated that the impugned items have been sold to actual users only and in the Nhava Sheva port, the benefit of exemption notification was given to them. All these averments have not been properly examined by the Commissioner. Moreover the show cause notice itself has not proposed denial of the exemption Notification. In these circumstances, the order of the Commissioner denying the benefit of notification which was already allowed goes beyond the scope of show cause notice. The assessee s bills of entry have not been reviewed by the Commissioner. Thus, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
