9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Director (Cost) was taken to examine the costing data. The assessment was finalised by the Deputy Commissioner after giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. The appellant challenged the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected their appeal on the following grounds:- "The main contention of the appellant is that the adjudicating authority has not applied his mind since his order is by and large passed based on the report of AD (cost). From the facts of the case it is observed that since there was no sale or purchase of the similar goods the transaction value of the goods cannot be ascertained. Under these circumstances the resort has to be made to the provisions of the Valuation Rule. In the valuation rules sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The appellant requested the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits based on their arguments in appeal. The appellants have argued in their appeal memorandum that the original authority has passed the order on the basis of the AD (costs) data and the same amounts to abdication of the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority. It was also argued in their appeal that the order passed by the adjudicating authority was void as it was in violation of the principles of natural justice as the report of the market enquiry was not provided to them. It was also argued by them that the advice of the AD (cost) was also not brought to their knowledge. The appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s they had received for the said material, however the same offer was rejected by the revenue only on the ground that the same were mere offer but not actual transaction. In the above circumstances the "suggestion" of AD (costs) that the value of production in question should be done at "110 - 115% of the highest market price" was considered reasonable and the assessment was finalised under the provisions of Rule 11 of the Valuation Rule 2000. It is seen on the report of the AD (cost) has not been provided to the appellant before finalizing the assessment resulting in miscarriage of justice. Further more there is no reason forwarded for adopting "110 -115% of the highest market price" as assessable value. Under these circumstances, the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
