Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (12) TMI 1029 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (12) TMI 1029 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value on the ground that the parties were related - related party transaction - Held that: - we find that there is no evidence brought on record that contemporaneous imports were at a higher price and there being one common director of the importers was also a director and supplier in Walltracts, Dubai, had influenced the price. In the absence of any such evidence, we find that the transaction value as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the case in hand, there is nothing on record to show that due to commonality of one director the prices were influenced. - Burden of proof of under invoicing is on the revenue, which has not been done. - The loading of the price by 100% is incorrect and the impugned order is unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/01/06 - Order No.A/94122/16/CB. - Dated:- 2-12-2016 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r Walltracts LLC, Dubai. One of the directors of the appellant company is also a director of Walltracts LLC, Dubai, hence revenue authorities held that there is a relationship between the supplier and the importer appellant. Accordingly, the declared price was rejected and loading of 100% was ordered. Appellant contested the same before the first appellate authority, who also agreed with the finding of adjudicating authority. 3. Ld. counsel would take us through the records and submit that trans .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rect; nor the appellant was put on notice as to why the declared value needs to be rejected. He would submit that common directorship between the two entities, which is the reason which has been considered by lower authorities which he submits is already settled by the Tribunal in the case of Prasiddha Trading Corporation 2004 (164) ELT 191 wherein it was held that in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher value, mere existence of common director will not entitle the reve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

98) ELT 3 (SC) (iii) Bayer Corp. Science Ltd - 2015 (324) ELT 17 (SC) (iv) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - 1995 (76) ELT 481. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative reiterates the finding of the lower authorities and submits that there is no dispute as to the fact that there is a common director between the appellant and the supplier Walltracts, Dubai. 5. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the impugned orders are unsustainable for more than one reason. 5.1. Firstly, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version