TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Technical) Sh. Mr. Ganeshwar (Superintendent), for the Appellant. Sh. None for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is filed by the revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.68/2008 (VII) CUS dated 20.10.2008. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. Since the appeal is of 2009 and lies narrow compass, the appeal is taken up for disposal and it is noticed a cross objection is filed by respondent. 3. By this order we disposing of appeal as well as the cross objection. 4. Heard Ld. Departmental representative and perused the records. On perusal of records it transpires that the issue is regarding assessment of Bill of Entries wherein differential duty of 3,39,375-/ is confirmed against respondent. Aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no hesitation in holding that the order/letter benefit of all the ingredients of a valid speaking order. The order is void ab initive for this very reason. The reasons behind issue of such an order, bell understanding. The order quoted two CBEC circulars No. 85/2003 dated 24.09.2006 and also advocates and admits adopting of transaction value in respect of the clearance of 4749.925 MTs in terms of CBEC circular No 06/2006 dated 12.01.2006 irrespective of the quantity ascertained through ullage. I had gone though CBEC circular 85/2003-Cus carefully and notice that certain guidelines have been given therein for testing of import cargo in question and assessment thereof given therein for testing of import cargo in question and assessment there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment should finalized accordingly. 7. I, for argument sake, am prepared, to set aside the fact that CBEC circulars are binding only on the departmental officers and not on the trade fairly settled position and proceed further in the examination of the issue. Decide on the applicability of Notification CBEC circular 6/2006 dated 12.01.2006 would first get down to examine whether Customs duty in the instance case leviable at a specific rate. For this, examination of the notification No. 36/2006 Cus (N.T) dated 03.08.2001, which is reproduced below herein for easy reference necessary. 7.1 Notification 36/2001-Cus(N.T) dated 03.08.2001. (does incorporate the amendments made from time to time, as the same is reproduced only for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty on crude palm oil is effectively levied at a specific rate (albeit indirectly in as much as duty is not specific whereas by specifying value duty is automatically rendered specific) and not on advalorem basis, in as much as, the levy of duty in respect of the said goods is based on the tariff values fixed by the Board from time to time, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus irrespective of the transaction value of the goods in question, the goods will always be assessed on a specific value in force at the material time and such a system of assessment can never be construed as advalorem system of assessment and can instead be only considered as levy of duty at specific r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
