TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d obviously the price of old stock of agriculture produce will not be equal to the fresh stock of agriculture produce - the comparison with the price of the different goods of different period cannot be held correct - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - APPEAL NO. C/1248, 1249, 1380 to 1389, 1475 to 1503, 1551 to 1561, 1563 to 1567, 1570 to 1575, 1584 to 1592/05 - Order No.A/94010-94081/16/CB. - Dated:- 28-11-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Pradeep Jain, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair In all these appeals, the common issue involved is the valuation of the imported Pista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fresh show cause notice dated 16-7-2004 was issued wherein valuation under Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 1998 was proposed. The adjudicating authority however confirmed the proposed demand under Rule 5, as was invoked in the show cause notice, vide adjudication order dated 21-2-2205. The appellant being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 21-2-2005 filed appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide appellate order dated 13-9-2005 dismissed the appeals holding that value is more appropriately determined under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and consequently determined the value invoking Rule 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) batch of present appeals are before us. 2. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crop, as by passing of time the product quality get deteriorated and the price of the old agriculture crop and new crop always differs. Both the lower authorities have not given any heed to this vital fact. He further submits that there is no tip of evidence that appellants have undervalued the goods by making payment of extra consideration through different mode. Therefore even before the applying the value of contemporaneous imports, first it is necessary to reject the value declared by the appellant and same should be on the basis of some evidence which shows that value was suppressed or undervalued. In the present case there is no such evidence was brought on record. Entire case was made out only on the basis of contemporaneous imports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected the adjudicating authority to issue a fresh show cause notice. In the present round of litigation a fresh show cause notice was issued invoking Rule 5 for enhancement of value and the demand was also confirmed under the said Rule 5, however Commissioner(Appeals) once again made same error and confirmed the valuation under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 1988. Thus, impugned order travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice and the adjudication order which is not permissible in law. As regard the facts of the case that enhancement of the value was proposed by the department only on the basis of some contemporaneous imports wherein price of imported goods was mentioned as US$ 4.8 per kg whereas appellant declared the price as US$ 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
