9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) For the Petitioner : Shri A.Baheti, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri S.K.Naskar, AC(AR) ORDER Per Dr. I.P. Lal. 1. Instant appeal is filed against the order-in-Appeal dated 19.2.2007 passed by Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Kolkata. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed bill of entry No.112658 dated 26.10.2004 for clearance of Palladium Catalyst (re-proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority again rejected the declared value under Rule 10(A) of CVR 1988 and re-determined the value under Rule 6 read with Rule 8 of the CVR 1988 on the basis of contemporary import by the same supplier at Japanese Yen 5462.40 per kg. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). The ld.Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the order passed by the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of the same cannot be extended in the instant case, as the metal in question is Palladium and not zinc. He submits that the wording of the Notification cannot be stretched to give the benefit to an item which is not covered under the said Notification. He relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgement in the case of Mohan Diaries reported in 2004(266)ELT 23(SC). 5. Heard both sides and per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence exists to establish that zinc metal, which is imported has in fact been obtained out of toll smelting or toll processing of zinc concentrate exported out of India, on the import of such zinc metal the duty shall be leviable as if the value of the said metal were equal to the aggregate of (a) labour charges (b) cost of materials (other than the cost of goods exported out of India) used in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner(Appeals) has rightly held that the benefit of the said Notification is not available to the appellant and the value was correctly determined on the basis of contemporary import under Rule 6 read with Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules-1988 after rejecting the provisions of Rule 4 & 5. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above we do not find any merit into the Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
