9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... protest. The appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment orders. Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for issuing a speaking order after complying the principles of natural justice. 2. In denovo proceedings, the adjudicating authority rejected the declared value of the goods in question under cover of 24 Bills of Entry and enhanced the value. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that they have been importing the said goods in different times through various ports such as Chennai, Kolkata etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They have also got the refund. In this context, the learned counsel drew the attention of the Bench the relevant portion of the written submission filed before the lower authorities. 6. The learned AR for Revenue submitted a written submission. He submits that the value of PU Coated Fabrics is a contentious issue for a long time. The Department was of the view that the value declared by the appellant is on the lower side in comparison to NIDB data. The adjudicating authority had given a detail finding for invoking Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules. The case laws relied upon by the learned counsel is not applicable to the present case. He submits that in this case the Department produced the evidence in terms of NIDB data relating to the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s' have been statutorily particularized in the Customs Valuation Rules and in the absence of these exceptions, it is mandatory for customs to accept the price actually paid or payable for the goods in the particular transaction. 9. The Tribunal in the case of DM International (supra), respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. (supra), held as under:- 5. We find that? there is no dispute that the customs has power to reject the transaction value and enhance the assessable value in terms of Customs Valuation Rules. However, such rejection of transaction value and enhancement of assessable value has to be on the basis of some evidences on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al or similar goods with regard to quantity, quality, country of origin and place and time of import. The learned DR relied upon letter dated 30-9-2005 of Assistant Commissioner (SIIB), ICD, TKD, addressed to Assistant Commissioner (Import Processing), ICD, Tughlakabad whereby it is stated that benchmark price for knitted polyester fabrics is arrived at US $ 2.50 per kg. We find that the price cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of benchmark price without stating any reason for rejecting transaction value. It appears that NIDB data placed by the learned DR has followed the benchmark price. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by Revenue is rejected. 11. We fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
