9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent submitted a letter requesting to reconsider the declared value stating that the amount of SGD 47733 was the showroom rate of new vehicle during 2001 which was declared in the Bill of Entry by mistake and he was ready to accept the department's valuation after depreciation. The price was determined in terms of Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 along a percentage of deprecation at 58% and adding Rs. 42,000/- on account of the extra fittings like CD changer, power steering, power windows, power mirror, alloy wheels, RCR and Rs. 80,000/- for refurbished items like tyres-Rs.20,000/-; upholstery - Rs. 30,000/-; metallic paint-Rs.30,000/-. The respondents have filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A) and have submitted anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing officer. The department has also expressed doubts about the genuineness of the invoice produced by the respondents before the Commissioner (A) contending that the invoice submitted by the respondent before the Commissioner (A) was for USD 6200 vide invoice dated 15.3.2005. In case, the invoice was in existence at the time of import, it is not understood as to why the respondent has not submitted it at the time of import/assessment and as to why it was submitted at the appellate stage after one year and two months after import. Moreover, the purchase of vehicle was in Singapore and the original invoice produced at the time of import indicated the price in Singapore dollars whereas the invoice produced at a later date was showing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same model car was traded in India at Rs. 7,80,000/- and Rs. 8,30,000/-, the price at a reasonable correlation to the invoice submitted by the respondent at the appellate stage; however, the details of invoices were not given. We find that the assessing officer has prima facie accepted the submission of the respondents that the value was declared wrongly at the time of import on the basis of original value in 2001 and the assessing officer has allowed depreciation of 58%. Therefore, the reasonableness of the assessing order is not in doubt. We find that the respondents have submitted a fresh evidence to the appellate authority, which was not under consideration before the assessing officer. In this context, a reading of Section 5 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o produce any evidence or any witness in rebuttal of the evidence produced by the appellant under sub-rule (1). (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the powers of the [Commissioner] (Appeals) to direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal." 4.1 As submitted by the department, it is a clear case where the Commissioner (A) has entertained a new evidence even though the conditions under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 (1) (a) to (d) are not satisfied and he has also not given any records in writing for such admission. 4.2 In view of the above, we find that the order of learned Commissioner (A) requires to be modified to that extent and the matter should necessarily go t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
