9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rightly rejected the Revenue s stand of determination of the value in respect of the previous consignment on the basis of the weighted average value for all the sizes on the ground that there is no such provision of law available either under the act or under the Rules made there under......... The commissioner has adopted the residuary Rule 8 and has rightly passed his decision on the basis of the value disclosed in the statement of Mehta." 3. It was submitted that there is a mistake in the observation of the Tribunal as the order involved valuation of 16 consignments and it was for 15 consignments only that the Commissioner has passed his decision on the basis of value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 31,65,006/- due to wrong manner of application of C.V. duty, which shows total non-application of mind on the part of the Commissioner. 4. It was further submitted that even in respect of 16th consignment where the Commissioner has determined the value on the basis of price reflected in the invoice, the revenue has in Para I(iv) of its grounds of appeal pointed out certain discrepancies in the value adopted by the Commissioner inasmuch as while calculating the duty in the Annexure-B to the impugned order on the basis of recovered invoices, the Commissioner has adopted the value therein as CIF, which is not correct. Perusal of the invoice No. 0643659 dated 28-6-95 shows that the value shown therein is ex-factory. There is no indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch clearly shows that terms of delivery was carriage plus insurance paid destination by sea fright. It clearly shows that the price indicated in the invoices was inclusive of freight and insurance. Therefore, there was no question of adding any further freight and insurance to the same. Even otherwise, in respect of invoice No. 0643676 dated 28-6-95 a freight of Rs. 23,000/- has already been added and this invoice is covered by bill of entry No. 551 dated 4-9-95. This bill of entry covers part of another invoice No. 0643659 dated 28-6-95, which does not show any addition of freight separately but even as per the show cause notice, in Para 26(d) it has been admitted that the freight of ATS 23700 is for the entire consignment and works out to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chosen to go by the invoice value recovered from importer's premises and have discarded the value indicated in the price list, the invoice value has to be adopted as a whole and the C.V. duty should have been calculated on the assessable value plus customs duty and therefore Commissioner's order demanding duly needs to be rectified and the total duty payable should amount to Rs. 2,94,26,135/- instead of Rs. 2,60,61,129/- as indicated in at para 10(b) of the impugned order and thus there is short determination of duty to the tune of Rs. 31,65,006/- due to wrong manner of application of C.V. duty Similarly discount shown in the invoice has to be allowed and cannot be compared with the discounts shown in the price list. This plea is therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
