TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared value cannot be rejected. The impugned order does not give any findings on why the said order is incorrect except to rely on the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) which has already been set aside by Tribunal. The matter once again is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh order without relying on the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) and limiting himself to the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No.10347 of 2021 - A/12438 2021 - Dated:- 11-10-2021 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL), AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL), Shri. Nirav Shah, Advocate For the Appellant Shri. J. A. Patel, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imports, relating to NIDB data and thereafter the matter may be decided afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity of personal hearing. 2.2 The matter was again taken up for adjudication again. The original Adjudicating Authority accepted the declared assessable value on various grounds. The revenue challenged the said order before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order dated 13.11.2019 and once again remanded the matter back to Original Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order by observing as follows. I have gone through the appeal carefully. Enhancement of value of glass chatons imported by the appellant at Pipavav port, on the basis of NIDB data, is the issue involved. In the impugned order, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order dated 13.06.2016, which pertained to assessment of glass chatons of different sizes and grades imported vide BE dated 28.01.2016, the rejection of declared value and redetermination of value using comparable data for some of the items and varieties was upheld, whereas, for the remaining items, the comparison was not proper as the quantity imported in the relied upon Bes was less than the quantity imported in the subject BE. Thus, the adjudicating authority seems to have proceeded on the established principle that for comparing the contemporaneous import data, comparable quantity of the items has to be considered, however, there is a gross error in comparing the aggregated quantity of glass chatons of different sizes, grades or varie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It has been argued that if revenue does not agree with the order of Tribunal then it should have filed appeal against the order of Tribunal. It has been argued that there is no evidence on record to reject the transaction value. It has been argued that Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that revenue has not furnished any evidence to reject the declared assessable value. There is no evidence of extra consideration flowing produce by the revenue. 2.4 In view of above, it was argued that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) needs to be set aside. It has also been argued that reliance on NIDB data is not sustainable. It has been argued that the NIDB data is based on reassessment and not based on actual invoice value. It has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the OIA No. JMN-CUSTM-000-APP-31-16-17 dated 13.06.2016 of the Commissioner (A), Ahmedabad, wherein the enhancement of transaction value has been upheld. The said order has already been set aside and no reliance can be placed on the said order. The Order In Original gives specific grounds why the declared value cannot be rejected. The impugned order does not give any findings on why the said order is incorrect except to rely on the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) which has already been set aside by Tribunal. 5. In view of above we do not find any merit in the impugned order. The same is set aside and matter once again is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh order without relying on the earlier order of Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
