Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (5) TMI 368

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... come Tax Act. 2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents M/s. Manoj Constructions Company nor there was any request for adjournment of the hearing. We observe that the matter is coming on board since September 1999 and no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondents. However, we notice that they had filed cross objections. Accordingly we proceed with the hearing of the matter in absence of the Respondents. 3. Shri M.C. Sharma, Learned C.D.R., mentioned that the Respondents had submitted in Cross Objection that the Appeal filed by the Department is time barred as the impugned Order is dated 29-12-1993 and the appeal was filed in September 1994. The learned C.D.R. explained that according to Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the date of filing of Bill of Entry; that similarly the remaining four consignments would be subjected to duty at the rate of prevailing on the respective date of arrival of goods. The Assistant Collector also gave his findings that the depreciation at the rate of 15 % per year of use was allowed while determining the assessable value as per the Standing Order No. 14/83 of Calcutta Customs House; that the depreciated value was escalated by 1/3 by which the value of new machines had escalated; that depreciation at the rate of 30% admissible under Income Tax Act could not be applied as there is separate law for the Customs Duty Purposes; that Section 14 of the Customs Act Provided for valuation of goods read with Customs Valuation Rules. 5. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the rate of duty would be the date of entry inwards which could be certainly only after the arrival of the vehicle; that as the first consignment of the impugned goods arrived on 11-5-86, the rate of duty in force on that day would be the relevant duty and not the rate of duty prevailing on the date of filing of the bill of entry. He also mentioned that the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Apar Pvt. Ltd., relied upon by the Collector (Appeals), has been reversed by the Supreme Court as reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 3 (SC) Union of India v. Apar Private Ltd. The Supreme Court held that the date when the vessel entered the territorial waters of India is not relevant for the purpose of Section 15 read with section 41 and 31 of the Cu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e to any imported goods shall be the rate in force in the case of goods entered for home consumption on the date on which the bill of entry is presented under Section 46 provided that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards. The perusal of the relevant bill of the entry reveals that no entry inwards number has been mentioned in the bill of entry, which goes to show that the bill of entry was filed prior to the entry inwards. The reliance of the Respondents on the certification given by M/s. Bridge and Roof Company India Ltd. , is of no use to them since as per letter dated 17-11-1985 of M/s. Bridge & Roof Co. they shall .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allowing 15% depreciation per annum. It is also seen from this calculation chart that after granting the depreciation, the value has been enhanced on the ground of price rise during the period from 1980 to 1985. We do not find any justification for enhancing the value of the imported goods on the said basis. In fact as per calculation chart, the value of the equipment has come down in comparison to 1980 in terms of dollars. The increase in the price is only on account of fall in the value of the Rupee vis-a-vis U.S. Dollar. This cannot be considered to be increase in price. We are, therefore, of the view that the value of the imported goods cannot be inflated on this ground. The proper office after allowing the depreciation at the rate of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates