9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-2011 wherein he had held that the transaction value of the goods imported from the related foreign entity has not been influenced by the relationship. The learned lower appellate authority has come to the opposite conclusion and has held that the relationship has influenced the transaction value and, therefore, the value declared by the appellant for the goods imported is not acceptable and has to be loaded by franchisee fee of 5% in terms of the franchise agreement and any other charges under Rule 10(l)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, M/s. Diesel Fashion India Reliance Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the appellant imported readymade garments from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant Rs. 6,559/- in their appeal before the lower appellate authority, the department has adopted a figure of Rs. 659 which is 1/10th of the selling expenses as certified in the books of accounts of the appellant. There is no rhyme or reason given in departmental appeal as to why the selling expenses of the appellant have been taken as 1/10th of the actual expenses. 3.2 In the light of the above, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not maintainable both on merits and on account of time-bar. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue submits that two copies of the order-in-original were received by the reviewing authority, one on 21-2-2011 and the other addressed to the Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011. Since time limit has been prescribed statutorily, the same has to be adhered to without any exception. Therefore, review order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) for filing of the appeal before the lower appellate authority is clearly unsustainable and thereby making the appeal itself not maintainable before the lower appellate authority. 6. In view of the above legal position, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same is set aside. Since we have set aside the impugned order as not maintainable on account of time-bar, we are not going to the merits of the case. Even on merits, prima facie the appellant has a case as per the evidences available on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
