Tax Management India. Com
Subscription  |   New User  |   Login
Acts/ Rules Notifications Circulars Forms Tariff/ ITC HSN Case Laws Manuals Short Notes
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Peak Scientific instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

2015 (6) TMI 109 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Determination of valuation of imported goods - related party transaction - differential customs duty - held that:- DC (SVB) has finalized the valuation under Rule 2 (2) (i) (ii) ofo CVR and rejected their invoice value and ordered for 39% loading - LAA has held in the impugned order that rejection of the transaction by the adjudicating authority was right and further held that loading of 39% of the invoice value by the adjudicating authority is not correct and the correct loading should be 65.12 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

after the appellant is given notice. In the present case even though there is no demand of customs duty but by enhancing the value of loading from 39% to 65.125% which has extra duty liability on the appellants and the enhancement had direct bearing on the increase of duty.

It is mandatory on the LAA to follow principles of natural justice before proposing for enhancement of value from 39% to 65.125% which the LAA has not followed in this case and the case needs to be remanded to LAA .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cial Member,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri B. Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) ORDER Per R. Periasami The present appeal is filed against impugned order dt. 26.8.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. 2. The issue relates to determination of valuation of imported goods on related party transaction and differential customs duty leviable on account of loading of invoice value. The appellant is a 100% of subsidiary of Peak Scientific Instruments L .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt of invoice value to 39% under Customs Valuation (Determination of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and directed the Assessing Group to finalise the provisional assessment. The appellants preferred appeal against the said SVB order and the Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order dt. 26.8.2014 upheld the order and also enhanced the percentage of loading from 39% to 65.125% and rejected the appeal. 2. Heard both sides. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that they preferred appeal with a pra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

percentage of loading of 35% but the LAA has not correctly calculated the value. He relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Anand Kumar Gupta Vs CC Mumbai 2000 (1200 ELT 407(Tri.-Del.) and submits that they have submitted volumes of third party invoices which has not been verified by the original authority as well as by the LAA. He further submits consequent on the enhancement of 69% in the above order, all their live consignments are being assessed after loading to 65.125%. Therefo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submits that Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order enhancing the percentage of loading is not in violation of Section 128A (3) as it is not applicable to SVB cases and no fresh demand has been made. He also submits that appellant have not submitted any documents/evidences even before the adjudicating authority to prove their bonafide claim. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has correctly loaded by taking into consideration all third party imports. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing on 14.7.2014 before LAA. The LAA has held in the impugned order that rejection of the transaction by the adjudicating authority was right and further held that loading of 39% of the invoice value by the adjudicating authority is not correct and the correct loading should be 65.125%. We find the appellant's main contention before LAA is to set aside the loading of 39% ordered by adjudicating authority whereas the LAA before enhancing the percentage of loading from 30% to 65.125% ought to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



Share:            

| Home | About us | Contact us | Disclaimer | Terms | Privacy |

©Taxmanagementindia.com
A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.
All rights reserved.

Go to Desktop Version