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 →

Connectronics & Cables P. Ltd. Versus C.C. (Adjudication) , Mumbai

2016 (1) TMI 326 - SUPREME COURT

Under-valuation of goods - comparable / identical goods - appellant argued that the products mentioned in Charts A and B could not be the basis for determining the valuation of goods mentioned in Chart D. He relied upon the reasoning of the Commissioner in this behalf and submitted that the order of the Commissioner should not have been opposed by the CESTAT.

We do not agree with the aforesaid submission for more than one reason. In the first instance, the CESTAT has categorically tak .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ter is remitted back to the Commissioner. - Decided against the assessee. - Civil Appeal No. 4163 of 2006 - Dated:- 2-9-2015 - A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. Shri Alok Yadav, Somnath Shukla, Udit Jain and Praveen Kumar, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Sanjiv Pal and B.K. Prasad, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant-assessee herein had imported certain goods from time to time and had cleared .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion which resulted in the lesser payment of customs duty. 2. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant pertaining to various goods in respect of which four charts, viz., Charts A, B, C and D, were prepared and in these charts the details of the goods imported from time to time were given. The assessee replied to this show cause notice. Ultimately, the Commissioner passed the order confirming the demand in respect of Charts A and B. As far as Chart C was concerned, the demand in respect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the Commissioner insofar as it related to dropping of the demand pertaining to Chart D. In that appeal, the CESTAT has remitted the case to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication on certain grounds, as would be noted hereinafter. 3. The assessee, in these circumstances, filed appeal against the order of the CESTAT. However, this Court admitted the appeal only in respect of goods described in Chart D. Therefore, we are concerned with the validity of the order passed by the CESTAT relating .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d acting merely on the basis of suspicion which certainly cannot be a substitute for proof. The Investigating agency had more than ample time (they had even sought extention of time for issue of show cause notice) for collecting details of the contemporaneous imports of similar and/or identical goods from the same or major ports or having the matter investigated into with the help of the investigating agency in the exporting country (as had been done in the case of Wings Electronics belonging 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

guments of the Revenue against the aforesaid approach of the Commissioner. The Revenue had argued that comparable price could be taken from Charts A and B inasmuch as majority of the goods listed in Chart D were identical to the goods prescribed in Charts A and B. The CESTAT in these circumstances observed that if that is correct, then the Commissioner will have to re-examine the issue and decide the same afresh in the light of the observation made by it in para 13 and the order reads as under : .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

art D cannot be confirmed by adopting the basis as disclosed in Charts A , B , inasmuch as the same would amount to giving credence to assumptions and presumptions as against the above. Revenue in their memo of appeal has strongly contended that the majority of the goods listed in Chart D are identical to goods described in Charts A , B . As such the Commissioner should have applied the same value for the purposes of identical goods listed in Chart D . However, we find that the details of 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

 

 

 

 

 

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