TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s described in Charts A and B. If that is correct, coupled with the fact that the valuation of goods insofar as Charts A and B is concerned has become final, we do not understand as to how that cannot be the basis for determining the transaction value of those goods listed in Chart D which are identical to the goods described in Charts A and B. Consequently, for this purpose, the matter 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT ) [2007 (210) E.L.T. 129 (Tri. - Mum)]. The Revenue also filed appeal against the order of 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 to Chart D alone. 4. As far as consignments, details whereof are mentioned in Chart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue 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 : The Commissioner has dropped the demand of duty of ₹ 1,37,46,082/- as proposed in Chart D on the ground that no specific quotations in respect of the goods covered by various consignments listed in Chart D have been disclosed by the investigating agency. There is also no evidence like, statement of accounts in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot have been opposed by the CESTAT. 7. We do not agree with the aforesaid submission for more than one reason. In the first instance, the CESTAT has categorically taken note of the submission of the Revenue that majority of goods listed in Chart D are identical to goods described in Charts A and B. If that is correct, coupled with the fact that the valuation of goods insofar as Charts A and B is concerned has become final, we do not understand as to how that cannot be the basis for determining the transaction value of those goods listed in Chart D which are identical to the goods described in Charts A and B. 8. Consequently, for this purpose, the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner. Thus, the Commissioner can adopt the valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
