TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot being of the same time; the import value of that Tower Overseas are not comparable at all. The fact was also placed on record by the appellant that during the same period of imports by the appellant, there have been imports of the similar item @0.27USD/SQM at the port of Mumbai by Yash Enterprise which is lesser than the price at which appellant imported the said items during the month of June 2006. It is also settled law that while applying the price of contemporaneous goods, when more than one price are available then the lowest of the prices should be taken for the assessment. Therefore for this reason the price could not have been enhanced in respect of the goods in question. As a result impugned order is not sustainable, accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05-04-2006 PVC Flex Sheet LF- 238 340 GSM 39199090 0.30/0.30 54036 TC-06- 0011/ 02-03-2006 2 623739 19-06-2006 --do-- --do-- 0.23/0275 53685 TC- 006- GU-1/ 25-05-006 3 624753 25-07-2006 --do-- --do-- 0.23/0275 53439 TC- 006- GU3/ 23-06-2006 2.1 The appellant was served upon a Show Cause Notice dated 06-10-2006 raising a demand of Custom Duty amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Tower Overseas. 2.2 It is not in dispute that the said copies of documents of imports were thereafter supplied to appellant vide letter dated 30-08-2019 and after considering the submissions of the appellant, adjudicating authority vide its OIO dated 20-02-2020 again confirmed the demand of duty and further imposed penalty under section 114A of the Act and the said OIO was upheld by Commissioner (appeals) by his OIA dated 13.05.2021. It is against this order of Commissioner (appeals) Ahmedabad, appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri Rahul Gajera, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Commissioner (appeals) erred in upholding the OIO dated 20.02.2020 without appreciating that the value was already en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of June 2006. It was further submitted that in any event, transaction value of the imported goods as declared should have been accepted in absence of any allegation or evidence of violation of any of the clauses of proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Rules, and since there is no allegation or evidence of payment of any amount over and above the invoice value of the supplier, the transaction value should be accepted. 4. Shri Vijay G. Iyengar, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. 5.1 As regard application of the contemporaneous price, we find that imports by Tower Over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
