Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CC Versus Champion Photostat Industrial Corporation

2009 (3) TMI 1045 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Customs Appeal No. 580 of 2006 - Final Order No. C/116/2009 - Dated:- 31-3-2009 - M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member And P.K. Das, Judicial Member. Fateh Singh, D.R. for the Appellant. Heman Bajaj, Adv. for the Respondent. ORDER M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) 1. This is a department's appeal against Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.74/CUS/CHD/2006 dated, 18th July, 2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The Respondent imported old and used Photocopiers and declared the value of ₹ 11,56,080 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lue and reduced the redemption fine from ₹ 1,50,000 to ₹ 10,000 and penalty from ₹ 1,20,000 to ₹ 5,000. The Department is on appeal against the Order of the Commissioner and seeks restoration of the Order of the Original Authority. 4. The relevant portion of the findings of the Commissioner is reproduced below: I have carefully examined the case records including the Appellants' submissions made in writing and observe that allegation leveled by the Adjudicating Author .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the Transaction Value without giving any reason for the same and he has erred in accepting the valuation done by the Chartered Engineer. I find that the Chartered Engineer engaged by the department has to give appropriate reasons as to why and how value shown by the importer is not acceptable and why there should be a new value. In this case, I find no reason in enhancing the value as has been given by the Chartered Engineer. I also find that no reason ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ificate cannot be relied upon. Therefore, I hold that in view of the Judgments of the Appellate Tribunal and the Apex Court in the case reported as 2003 (161) ELT 382(T), 2004 (178) ELT 277 (T),2 2004 (174) ELT 98(T), 2005 (180) ELT 84 (t)3 and 2004 (163) ELT 289 (SC),4 the transaction value has to be accepted for charging the Customs Duty and accordingly I set aside the impugned Order in so far as it relates to charging of duty on enhanced value. Further, I find that there was no mala fide inte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version