TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso not made out as to how the said imports of M/s. Vaz Enterprises are comparable with the impugned import in 2005; except mentioning that the goods are of the same brand nothing more is forthcoming from the OIA and OIO - this cannot be a reason for rejecting the transaction value declared by the appellants as no comparable parameters like supplier, importer, quantity, quality time of import are matching - Moreover in addition to the above, the principles of natural justice have been grossly violated as no sufficient time was given to the respondent to reply to the show cause notices or prepare for personal hearing. Issuance of two SCNs - HELD THAT:- Issuing 2 notices in too short a time may suffice the requirements of law in letter bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.2005 and declared assessable value of ₹ 16,42,058/-. The department did not accept the declared assessable value and has enhanced the value . The Dy. Commissioner has re-determined the assessable value at ₹ 22,29,999.20 under Rule 8 of Customs valuation Rules, 1988. The same was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the above said impugned order. 2. Shri Hari Om Tiwari, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Dy. Commissioner has issued 2 letters dated 13.3.2012 and 20.03.2013 in quick succession only for the sake of formality for fixing PH and passed the order on 27.03.2012 without waiting for the reply from the appellant. This was clear violation of natural justice ; the importer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 but directly jumped to Rule 8; such proceeding which was struck down in Krishna Trading Co. V/s CC 2001 137) ELT 429 (T.Kol) 6. Learned Counsel further submits that the Deputy Commissioner referred to an OIO dated 30.1.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner in the case of import of components parts of some branded air-conditioners by M/s. Vaz Enterprises by a Bill of Entry in 2003; the original authority has seriously erred in not considering the differences in technical features and commercial levels which was held to be bad law in Pushpanjali Silk P.Ltd V/s.CCD 2009 (238)ELT (1350 (Tri.Chen); the learned counsel further submits that the department has not alleged or proved any payment5 to the overseas supplier over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for rejecting the transaction value declared by the appellants as no comparable parameters like supplier, importer, quantity, quality time of import are matching. Moreover in addition to the above we find that the principles of natural justice have been grossly violated as no sufficient time was given to the respondent to reply to the show cause notices or prepare for personal hearing. Issuing 2 notices in too short a time may suffice the requirements of law in letter but the spirit of the same defeated. We find that the action of the lower authority is not at all sustainable under law. Moreover we find that on merits also the case does not stand on even one leg. Firstly, no reasons were recorded for rejecting the declared value; Secondly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
