Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 702 - AT - CustomsPrinciples of Natural Justice - Mutuality of interest - holding subsidiary relationship - related party or not - Valuation - clearances of goods, by the holding company to the subsidiary company - inclusion of marketing expenses incurred by the subsidiary, in the assessable value of finished goods - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The impugned orders are silent as to how the appellants claim of valuation under Rule 7 was legally tenable and how Rules preceding the same are not applicable. The respective authorities have only disputed the fact that certain expenses incurred by the subsidiary on account of Marketing and Advertisement were not included and that they are related - Revenue has not considered the provisions of Section 3 of CETA as it is seen that they have accepted the costing method applied by the appellants. Moreover, if Rule 7A of the Rules is applied, no proper reasoning has been given in the impugned orders. The issue needs to go back to the original authority to consider the Rules of valuation and to give clear findings on the conclusions arrived thereof. Moreover, we find that the initial SCN was adjudicated by the Commissioner and the subsequent SCNs were adjudicated by lower authorities. In the interest of Justice, we hold that all the SCNs be adjudicated now by Commissioner who is competent to adjudicate the case involving highest duty. Applicability of the extended period - HELD THAT:- The appellants have taken the plea that earlier provisional assessment was made and was finalised and even under circumstances, Department has invoked extended period. We find that the submissions of the appellant that they have submitted all the details at the time of provisional assessment and the department has gone through their submissions and finalised the assessments - the submissions of the appellants have not been considered in detail in as much as the manner in which the provisional assessments were finalised have not been discussed at all. Whether M/s. HSL and M/s.HWPL are related entities? - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has not considered the submissions of the appellants on this account. It was also alleged in the SCNs and affirmed in the OIO that marketing and advertisement expenses borne by the subsidiary were on behalf of the appellants and therefore, are includable in the assessable value - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has not given any findings after going through the submissions of the appellants and balance sheets of different companies. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to Commissioner of Customs in the interest of Justice.
|