TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble Supreme Court of India in COLLECTOR OF C. EX., NEW DELHI VERSUS GURU NANAK REFRIGERATION CORPN. [ 2003 (3) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT] that if there are no allegations that there was no price at which the goods were sold by the appellant and if there are no allegations that the price was not the sole consideration for the sale and if there were no allegations that the buyers were not at arm s length and if there are no allegations that there was flow back of money from the buyers to the assessee then revenue cannot reject the price declared by the appellant. In the present case there were no allegations that the price of the goods was not available. In fact the goods were cleared by the appellant during the relevant period with tota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were issued with a show cause notice dated 21.02.1997. It was stated in the said show cause notice that appellant were issued with another show cause notice under Customs Act, which was issued on 01.07.1996 and through the said show cause notice various raw materials imported by the appellants were alleged to be undervalued on their import into India and differential Customs duty of ₹ 34,430/- and CVD of ₹ 15,493/- was demanded. It was further stated in the show cause notice dated 21.02.2019 that in terms of Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of M/s Ujagar Prints Others Vs Union of India reported at 1988 (19) ECR 578 (SC) since the cost of the material used by the appellant was enhanced the assessable value of the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed the demand and ordered to pay the appropriate interest on the confirmed amount. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere with the order passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard Shri Jitin Singhal and Shri Pravesh Bahuguna learned Advocates appearing for the appellant. They have submitted that there were no allegations in the subject show cause notice that the assessable value on shoes manufactured and cleared by the appellant during the period of show cause notice was not the sole consideration and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le value of goods cleared by the appellant during the period from August, 1996 to December, 1996. The appellant has submitted that there were no allegations in the show cause notice that the price at which the goods were sold by the appellant to the buyers was not the sole consideration and they have also submitted that there were no allegations that there was any flow back of consideration from the buyers of the appellant. They have further relied on this Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corporation (supra) which was affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court. For the sake of ready reference, we reproduce para-7 of the said Final Order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corporation (supra) as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and the buyers were not at arm s length. There is no allegation that there was a flowback of the money from the buyer to the assessee. Having regard to these factors and examining the price in the instant case, we find that there was no reason to reject the price simply because it was less than the cost of manufacture of raw material, manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit. Having regard to these rulings of the Hon ble Supreme Court, we uphold the contentions of the appellants that the price declared by them was a correct price. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. It is clear from the precedent decision of this Tribunal affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court of India that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
