9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellants. Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, JDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Since these two appeals arise out of a common Order-in-Appeal and they involve a common point at issue and also relate to the same appellants, this combined order is being issued in respect of both of them. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellants entered into two contracts with their foreign supplier on 20-9-1976 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of 60 M.T. also at the Higher London Metal Bulletin price. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector maintained the decision of the Department. The appellants then field revision application to the Central Government which, on transfer to this Tribunal under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, have been taken up as the subject appeals. 3. During the hearing today, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions and the international trade practice, the Department was not justified in rejecting the lower contracted price of U.S. $129.50 for the smaller consignment of 60 M.T. 4. The Department's representative reiterated the reasoning of the lower authorities that for the same goods contracted on the same date with the same supplier, there could not be two different assessable values. He adde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted for the goods at about the same time had paid any different price. There is also no evidence on record to indicate that the Department doubted the bona fides of the transaction. Nor is there any suggestion that the fixed price obtained by the appellants was not a price at arm's length. In the circumstances, we hold that the Department was not justified in escalating the contracted price of U.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
