TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d bill of entry No. 989 dated 9-9-05. The assessing officer enhanced the value. The respondent paid duty on the enhanced value and filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Hence, the Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Learned SDR reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that respondents accepted the enhanced value and paid duty and therefore, the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) is not maintainable. He relied upon the Board s Circular No. 91/2003 dated 14-10-03. Further, he submits that it appears from the bill of entry that it was disclosed to the respondents that the value was enhanced on the basis of NIDB data. He also submits that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llow the clearance . 6. It appears that the assessing officer proposed to allow the clearance subject to agreement of the enhanced value by the importer. There is no material that the basis of enhancement of value was disclosed to the importer. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned DR that the respondent accepted the enhanced value. In any event, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhanced value after examining the case file. There is no dispute that the Revenue is not bound by the invoice value and therefore, the case law relied upon by the DR has no relevancy on this issue. We have seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the files set aside the enhance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t justified. Moreover, from the records, it is seen no NIDB print out regarding value of contemporaneous imports is available and hence, it is not known as to how the value was enhanced to Rs. 24.33 per piece when the imported consignment consisted of three different varieties of batteries. 7. In the appeal filed by Revenue, the above finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not refuted. We also note that Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order after considering different price of varieties of batteries and adoption of the enhanced price on other varieties of batteries is not acceptable. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by Revenue is rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
