GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 585 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2015 (12) TMI 585 - CESTAT CHENNAI - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 388 (Tri. - Chennai), 2016 (335) E.L.T. 520 (Tri. - Chennai) - Valuation - SVB has accepted the invoice price as transaction value - no contemporaneous imports as moulds are tailor made - importer/ respondent and the foreign supplier were related under Rule 2(2) of CVR - Held that:- AC(SVB) in his order after examining the agreements and documents and CA certificate accepted the invoice price as transaction value. When the Revenue initially r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. - Revenue coming to the Tribunal against new grounds is not maintainable. We find that it is the Revenue who preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the adjudication (SVB) order. Nothing prevented the Revenue to raise any number of grounds when the department reviewed the OIO and filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). - This is the case of SVB order and not confirmation of demand of customs duty under Section 28 of the Act. The adjudicating authority had onl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

due for renewal by the authority - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/41753/2013 - Final Order No. 41365 / 2015 - Dated:- 22-9-2015 - Shri R. Periasami Technical Member And Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Adv., ORDER Per: R. Periasami, Revenue preferred this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

elated under Rule 2(2) of CVR and held that the invoice price shall be accepted as transaction value and directed the assessing group to finalize all the pending provisional assessment and held that this order is operative for three years up to 23.05.2015. The department reviewed AC s Order and preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), on the ground that the original adjudicating authority has not compared with contemporaneous import of similar goods before passing the OIO and the orig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lar goods whereas, he only dealt on the identical goods. Further he submits that the respondents have imported pressing machines which were not manufactured by the principal company but were procured from various manufacturers and supplied to the appellants. He submits that there was no reference of purchase price indicated by the supplier. He also submits that the respondent is remitting the invoice price to the principal company and retaining the profit margin. Therefore, he pleads that the ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

econd-hand ones. He drew attention to the OIO page 21, where the AC (SVB) after examining the agreements and documents and also after satisfying the Chartered Engineers certificate on the deductive value arrived had accepted the transaction value. He drew attention to the grounds of appeal by the department against the OIO which is at page 26 of the paper book and submits that the department preferred appeal only on one ground that the adjudicating authority has not compared with contemporaneou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aised before the lower appellate authority. He relies on the following decisions in support of his contention- 1. DLF Ltd. Vs. CC, Kandla 2014 (302) ELT 303 (Tri. Ahmd.) 2. CCE, Bombay Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra (Auto) Ltd. 2000 (122) ELT 835(Tri.) 3. Warner Hindustan Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad 1999 (113) ELT 24 (S.C.) He drew the attention of the Bench to Rule 3(3) (a)(b) of CVR and submits that a sale between related persons, the transaction value shall be accepted, whenever the importer demonst .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the SVB order passed by the AC (SVB) and the impugned order, we find that the AC(SVB) in his order after examining the agreements and documents and CA certificate accepted the invoice price as transaction value. When the Revenue initially reviewed the said OIO, we find that there is only one ground on which the Revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the adjudicating authority has not compared the value of contemporaneo .....

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 pressing machines are purchased from various unrelated manufacturers in their country and the same have been supplied to the respondent. However, there is no reference about the price at which the goods were purchased by the related supplier and the price at which the goods were supplied to the Indian importer. (c) Further, in para 6 of the impugned OIA, it is stated that the respondent (importer) remits back the foreign invoice price to the parent company in Korea and the difference between .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) and (c) were either raised before the adjudicating authority or before the lower appellate authority. In the departments appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the lower appellate authority has examined the grounds of appeal and given clear findings on the contemporaneous imports. Therefore, the department has left out with only one option to contest only on said ground. The Revenue cannot raise new grounds before the Tribunal which was not before the adjudicating authority or LAA. 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

how cause why these tablets should not be classified under Tariff Heading 3003.19 as patent or proprietary medicines . The Assistant Collector, after hearing the appellant, held that the tablets were patent or proprietary medicines classifiable under Heading 3003.19. In appeal by the appellant, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the tablets were Ayurvedic medicines classifiable under Heading 3003.30. The Excise authorities went in appeal to the Tribunal and, for the first time, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts were patent or proprietary medicines classifiable under Heading 3003.19. The Tribunal also noted that both sides have not adduced any detailed arguments as to why these tablets can be considered as confectionery item or otherwise although a plea is there from the Collector in the grounds of appeal that the goods are assessable under Tariff 17.04". In our opinion, the Tribunal was quite wrong in these circumstances in allowing the appeal of the Excise authorities and classifying the mint .....

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