Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Suvee Impex Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs And Service Tax Bangalore-Cus

2015 (12) TMI 653 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Demand of differential duty - Undervaluation of goods - Held that:- There is no reference by the Revenue to any contemporaneous import declaring the price of identical goods at a higher value. The only reference is to those imports where the value was enhanced by the Customs Authorities based upon the letter of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Nhava Sheva, Bombay. Merely because the value was enhanced by the Customs, the same would not become contemporaneous imports. In the present case also, t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Customs (Imports) Bombay, which in any case has not been placed before us cannot be adopted as the sole reason for enhancement of the price. - enhancing the value based on cost construction method cannot be held to be a proper method to decide upon the value of the goods, especially when there is no evidence of any consideration flowing back to the foreign supplier.

Adjudicating authority has observed that till February 2013, the lower assessable value was being accepted and the go .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r Archana Wadhwa All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved in all of them is identical. 2. As per facts on record, the appellant entered into sales contracts with various foreign suppliers of PVC coated polyester fabric located in China. The contracts were for huge quantity and apart from giving the unit price of the goods, the total contract value was also reflected in the contracts. 3. However, on presenting bill of entry for clearance of the first consignme .....

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 Customs Authorities was less than the value as declared by the assessee. 4. However, the original adjudicating authority observed that the contemporaneous imports referred to by the assessee was in the month of January and February 2013 whereas after the said period, the value in respect of other importers has also been enhanced based upon the letter of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Nhava Sheva, Maharashtra communicated on 12.03.2013, detailing a formula for PVC coated fabric, and arriv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

both sides duly represented by Shri V.M. Doiphode for the appellant and Shri Mohammad Yusuf for the Revenue, we find that the original adjudicating authority has not disputed the fact that in January and February 2013, the imports of identical products were made at a price which is less than the price declared by the appellant. However, he refers to certain other imports made subsequently at ICD, White Field Bangalore where the value was enhanced by the Customs Authorities based upon the clarif .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rts) Nhava Sheva, Bombay. Merely because the value was enhanced by the Customs, the same would not become contemporaneous imports. In the present case also, the Customs have enhanced the value and the present enhancement cannot be considered to be contemporaneous for the other subsequent imports. 8. The value declared by the appellant is on the basis of the contracts entered into by them with the foreign supplier. There is no evidence on record that the value as declared in the invoices is not t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eclared value where the Revenue does not produce evidence to rebutt the correctness of the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC Calcutta Vs South India Television (P) Ltd. reported as [2007 (214) ELT 3 (S.C.)] has observed that casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value of imported goods and under-valuation has to be proved by evidences or information about comparable imports. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the sai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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