Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Walltracts (India) P. Ltd, Versus Commissioner of Customs (lmport) , Mumbai-I

2016 (12) TMI 1029 - CESTAT MUMBAI

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 declared by the appellant should not have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ord 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) Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs 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 transaction between them and Walltracts, Dubai i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 revenue to enhance declared import prices It is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d - 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, we find that there is no evidence brought o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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