Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 901 - AT - CustomsValuation - related party transaction - comparable prices - import of foreign scotch - Though the principal company was registered in USA, but the goods were imported from Scotland by making the payment in foreign currency i.e. British pound. The invoices produced by the assessee-Appellants were rejected by the Customs Department and had taken the value from their own resources which were on higher side - Held that: - an identical issue has come up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 467 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that the Tribunal erred in re-opening and examining afresh the question as to whether or not the value of CAB could be determined by applying Rule 6 and, therefore, the objection of the revenue in that regard deserves to be accepted. Principles of Natural Justice - supply of comparable chart - Held that: - the considerable time has already been lapsed and the assessee-Appellants have not asked the relevant material in the first round of litigation before the Tribunal as well as before Hon’ble Delhi High Court to support his arguments. At this belated stage, demanding of the documents i.e. comparable chart is nothing but a dilatory tactics just to delay the proceedings as the period under consideration starts from 2003. The original authority has already given the chart by mentioning that the “Concentrated Alcohol Beverages‟ (CAB) was diluted upto 60% concentrate. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order pertaining to the comparison of the price. It may be mentioned that the Department has not taken care of inflation in the price. The prices available in the year 1999 were applied in the year 2003 to 2011. If the prices have gone down in the subsequent period (under consideration), then the assessee-Appellants have not provided any comparable chart/material in spite of repeated requests by the Bench. When it is so, then the impugned order appears reasonable. Hence, by upholding the impugned order along with the reasons mentioned therein, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants. Interest - Held that: - the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 15 were inserted on 13.07.2006 vide Section 21 of the Taxation laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 - The said provision is not applicable retrospectively. Hence, prior to 13.07.2006, no interest can be charged. Therefore, the ground for charging interest retrospectively is allowed in favour of the assessee-Appellants. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|