Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 365 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Valuation of imported goods - water based printing ink or solvent based printing ink - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value based in NIDB data - Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 has been applied or not - HELD THAT:- This is case of repeated remands therefore it seems that the original authority has not purposely followed the directions of the appellate authority leading to unnecessary litigation to the party - there are no order of the proper officer has been passed within 15 days of assessing the Bills of Entry as the same was not accepted by the party and the release of goods procured under protest. Also, there is no order on record indicating the Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 has been applied after rejecting the transaction value on the basis of enquiry and a reasoned order indicating that the materials were rejectable and on what ground alone the appeal is liable to succeed.
In identical facts, various benches of this Tribunal have ordered the same proposition in the case ITALIK METALWARE PVT LTD VERSUS C.C. -MUNDRA [2023 (8) TMI 1157 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and in the case of M/S. SARDA ENERGY AND MINERALS LTD. VERSUS CCE, RAIPUR [2017 (9) TMI 1142 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] of firstly there being requirement of rejecting transaction value after inquiry and order.
Therefore, in the absence of following such statutory requirement the show cause notice becomes unsustainable. The appellant therefore becomes eligible to relief - the remand order passed second time by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside - appeal allowed.