9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri S.J. Sahu, Asst. Commr. (A.R.) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran: This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 79/2005 MCH dated 04.02.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I. 2. Heard both sides and perusal of the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the valuation of one Mercedes Benz Car imported vide Bill of entry No. 114 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a point of dispute in the present appeal. The appellants are contesting the inclusion of price of accessories in the value of the car determined by the lower authority. Valuation of the same was not a point of determination before Hon'ble Tribunal, and the appellants also did not contest the same at the time of appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal. It is a settled position that in case of remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not controverted the above said factual matrix. Since the certificate and the invoice issued by the appellant does not indicate any different amount charged for accessories, we find that both the lower authorities were in error of adding value of accessories for determining the value for discharge of the Customs duty and in violation of direction of Tribunal in earlier Order dated 02.01.2004. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
