2023 (9) TMI 576 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Project Import - demand of differential duty - levy of penalty - undervalued goods - goods procured at a higher price than that shown in the invoice - rejection of transaction value - enhancement of value - delay in passing the assessment - HELD THAT:- On perusal of Project import Contract it is seen that the amount fixed by the parties to the contract (M/s.PPN and M/s.Marubeni) is for the entire contract which includes goods which have ben sourced from vendors other than M/s.Stone & Webstar. The appellant has to pay in total the contract value. It is this value that has been split into various segments. M/s.PPN has to pay only this contract value and need not pay any amount higher even if M/s.Marubeni has procured some goods at a higher price.

There is no allegation that there is some hidden payments made by M/s.PPN to M/s.Marubeni. The documents of payment show that appellant has paid only the amount as per contract. The ground put forward by the department to reject the transaction value declared for some items cannot be accepted when the amount fixed is for the entire project import.

In the case of AGARWAL INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VIZAG [2005 (8) TMI 225 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] the Tribunal held that the transaction value arrived at purely on commercial considerations based on contracts, transaction value not to be rejected unless established with reason.

Delay in passing the assessment - HELD THAT:- There is considerable delay of more than 13 years after the date of report of DRI (8/2006) till the order of finalization (27.09.2019). The department has not been able to explain this delay. The higher forums have held that in such situations, in unreasonable delay in adjudication / finalization of assessment the show cause notice itself is liable to be quashed.

The finalization has happened after 15 years of provisional assessment which is extremely inordinate delay, and also against the instructions issued by CBIC as to finalization of Project Import Assessments The department has not been able to put forward cogent evidence to reject the transaction value - thus it is found that the demand of differential duty the order for confiscation of goods, imposition of Redemption Fine and penalties imposed on M/s. PPN cannot sustain and requires to be set aside.

The impugned orders are set aside - Appeals are allowed.