Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 1226 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 1226 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (331) E.L.T. 133 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Valuation - Enhancement in value of goods - claim of benefit of preferential rate of duty - denial of the benefit of Notification No. 321/76-Cus dated 2.8.1976 - Held that:- From the documents, we find that the adjudicating authority has compared the incomparable. The certificate of origin is issued by PIC showing the date of invoice as 12.3.1984 whereas the invoice submitted with the Bill of Entry is issued by the expo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

20 years. In any case Revenue has not submitted any evidence to show that freight and insurance were paid separately. Revenue s case is based on technicalities on account of so called discrepancies some of which we have clarified in the para above. Revenue s case is that the COO issued from Singapore does not indicate the invoice number.

Departure date i.e. 28.3.1984 indicated in the COO issued at Singapore tallies with the date of invoice issued by M/s. Transicom. The adjudicating .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ity is in the invoices submitted along with the Bill of Entry and the invoice submitted later. Although, they bear the same number and date, the first invoice does not indicate CIF basis whereas the other copy indicates CIF basis. It appears that when the appellant were asked to submit whether shipment is on FOB or CIF basis, they have added CIF on the copy of the invoice submitted later. - there is sufficient co-relation between various documents to support the view that the invoice is on CIF b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Respondent : Shri D.K. Sinha, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) ORDER Per : P.S. Pruthi This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal in which the Commissioner upheld the decision of the lower authority to enhance the assessable value and deny the benefit of Notification No. 321/76-Cus dated 2.8.1976. 2. The appellant imported 203.261 MTs of Crude Glycerin vide Bill of Entry dt. 11.04.1984. The value declared was as per invoice No. 10/334 dt. 28.3.1984 issued by M/s. Transicom (Bu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

objections a show cause notice was issued demanding duty of ₹ 12,39,767/-. 3. The contention of the Ld. Counsel is that the noting on the reverse of the Bill of Entry indicates that the COO certificate was produced. Further, he draws our attention to the certificate of the manufacturer i.e. Pharmaceutical Industries Corporation Burma certifying the goods to be Burmese Origin . Similarly, the certificate of the surveyor that is M/s. SGS (Burma) Ltd. also showed the origin as Burma. Further .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th sides. On the issue regarding certificate of origin we find that the appellant submitted a certificate of origin dt. 19.3.1984 issued by M/s. Pharmaceutical Industries Corporation declaring the country of origin as Burma. The goods were transshipped through Singapore and a Certificate dt. 3.4.1984 issued by the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce certifying the goods to be of Burmese Origin was also submitted. In the letter certificate the exporter is shown as M/s. Transicom, Singapore who i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s Burma, the goods having transited through Singapore. The adjudicating authority has pointed out the discrepancy in the name of the vessel appearing in the two certificates of origin. The certificate issued by PIC shown the name of vessel as MV HTONEYWA whereas the name of the vessel in the Bill of Entry is shown as vessel MV BINTANG HARPAN. On seeing the documents we find that there is no discrepancy. The Bill of Lading got issued by M/s. Transicom shows the following: Local Vessel M/V HTONEYW .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he certificate of origin is issued by PIC showing the date of invoice as 12.3.1984 whereas the invoice submitted with the Bill of Entry is issued by the exporter i.e. M/s. Transicom Burma and will naturally be of a later date i.e. on 28.3.1984. On proper appreciation of the documents as well as the fact that the notification No. 321/76 does not require the COO to be issued by any designated authority, in our view the two certificates of origin indicating the COO as Burma cannot be discarded. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

have clarified in the para above. Revenues case is that the COO issued from Singapore does not indicate the invoice number. We note that it indicates the name of the vessel, the number of drums, the weight, the L/C number? all these tally with the particulars in the Bill of Lading. It should not have been difficult for Revenue to co-relate such documents. Further we find that the departure date i.e. 28.3.1984 indicated in the COO issued at Singapore tallies with the date of invoice issued by M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version