TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the importer while filing the bill of entry - HELD THAT:- When there is a serious dispute as to whether the appellant had given consent in writing to the reassessed value or not, this issue has to be first decided by the Division Bench because it is only in such circumstances that the decision of the Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS DELHI VERSUS M/S HANUMAN PRASAD SONS [ 2020 (12) TMI 1092 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] would apply. The matter is, therefore, sent back to the Division Bench so that a decision on this core issue is taken because only then reliance can be placed by the revenue on the decision of the Tribunal in Hanuman Prasad. - HON BLE MR JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT, HON BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BLEMR AJAY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on the Bill of Entry on the basis of the consent given by the importer without assigning any such reason for such enhancement. 3. A Miscellaneous Application was filed by the appellant with a prayer that the reference made to the Larger Bench may be withdrawn for the reason that the order wrongly records that the appellant had given consent and accepted the reassessed value. The appellant categorically stated in the application that the appellant had never given consent for enhancing the value, either in writing or orally, and that the appellant had also not referred to the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Laxmi Colour Lab vs. Collector of Customs 1992 (62) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal). The appellant, therefore, stated that the reference order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Bench to the Larger Bench for the reason that the appellant had never given consent to the reassessed value either orally or in writing. Learned consultant submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had mistakenly assumed that the appellant had given consent and though this fact was specifically asserted by the appellant in the Miscellaneous Application, but it was not decided. He, therefore, submitted that the matter may the sent back to the Division Bench for deciding the appeal on merits. 6. Learned authorised representative appearing for the department, however, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Hanuman Prasad as the appellant had given consent in writing to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
