TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws that the documentary proof in this behalf was placed before the Commissioner. In any case the submission of the learned counsel is that the payment was made through banking and the such proof can always be given to CESTAT. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is set aside and the case is remitted to the CESTAT for fresh consideration. - Appeals disposed of - Civil Appeal Nos. 4275-4277 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2016 - A. K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman , JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr.Adv. Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Jeevan B. Panda, Adv. Mr. Abhisaar Bairagi, Adv.for M/s. Khaitan Co For the Respondent : Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants). Earlier also, the appellant had imported four similar Chip Placer Machines along with Laser Micsroscope and Sigma tester vide Bills of entry dated 20.11.2000, 20.12.2000 and 16.12.2003. According to the Department the value of the aforesaid machines were also declared less. On the basis of this investigation the department issued show cause notice as to why the demand of ₹ 22,278,742/- in respect of bill of entry dated 19.07.04 be not made and a proposal was also made for confiscation of these machines. So far as the earlier imports are concerned in the show cause notice re-assessment was proposed demanding the differential duty of ₹ 62,65,657/-. The action for penalty was also proposed therein. The matter was adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taken recourse to Rule 4 of the Transaction Valuation Rules. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has argued that there was no sale consideration given by the appellants to M/S 'SMART' at the time of import of these machines, there was a fair understanding between the parties that as soon as the appellant starts making profit it will pay the price of the said machines. According to the appellant in the year 2004, the appellant Company started earning profits and in that year the appellant had made payment of US $ 1,03,000 towards the cost of these machines to M/s 'SMART' in December, 2004. Our attention was drawn to the reply to show cause which was filed by the Commissioner wherein specific averment to this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards the cost of the machines was made, the reply which is extracted above shows that the documentary proof in this behalf was placed before the Commissioner. In any case the submission of the learned counsel is that the payment was made through banking and the such proof can always be given to CESTAT. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and remit the case back to the CESTAT for fresh determination. As already pointed out by the counsel that there were certain other arguments raised, we may clarify that it would be open to the appellants to argue the appeal afresh by making all the submissions which are against the appellants in the order passed by the Commissioner. The appeals are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
