9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up together for discussion and decision. The details of the appeals are given herein below : S.No. Appeal No. Name of Party Relevant Period Impugned Order 1. C/61293/2019 Garg Impex April 2012 to January 2013 CC(A)/CUS/D- II/PPG/589- 593/2019-20 dated 20.08.2019 2. C/61294/2019 Garg Impex April 2012 to January 2013 CC(A)/CUS/D- II/PPG/589- 593/2019-20 dated 20.08.2019 3. C/61295/2019 Garg Impex April 2012 to January 2013 CC(A)/CUS/D- II/PPG/589- 593/2019-20 dated 20.08.2019 4. C/61296/2019 Garg Impex April 2012 to January 2013 CC(A)/CUS/D- II/PPG/589- 593/2019-20 dated 20.08.2019 5. C/61297/2019 Garg Impex April 2012 to January 2013 CC(A)/CUS/D- II/PPG/589- 593/2019-20 dated 20.08.2019 6. C/61300/2019 Garg Impex June 2013 to October 2013 CC(A)/CUS/D- II/PPG/587- 588/2019-20 dated 21.08.2019 7. C/61301/2019 Garg Impex June 2013 to October 2013 CC(A)/CUS/D- II/PPG/587- 588/2019-20 dated 21.08.2019 8. C/61298/2019 Sedna Impex India Pvt Ltd October 2013 CC(A)/CUS/D- II/PPG/612- 613/2019-20 dated 28.08.2019 9. C/61299/2019 Sedna Impex India Pvt Ltd October 2013 CC(A)/CUS/D- II/PPG/612- 613/2019-20 dated 28.08.2019 2. Briefly stated fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law, and binding judicial precedents on the identical issue. 4.1 He further submits that the impugned order has disregarded the declared transaction value in violation of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 3 of Custom Valuation Rules, 2007 ("CVR, 2007"). He also submits that under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, the value of imported goods for the purpose of assessment of duty must be the transaction value, i.e., the price actually paid or payable for the goods, at the time and place of importation, where the buyer and seller are not related, and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. He further submits that the statute makes it clear that the transaction value is the basis of assessment, subject to the conditions prescribed in the Valuation Rules. He further submits that sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the CVR, 2007 provides that value of imported goods under sub-rule (1) shall be accepted subject to certain exceptions. No such exceptions have been pointed out in the assessments made by the Assessing Authority. He also submits that since none of the exceptions stipulate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty in terms of Notification No 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 and therefore, CVD charged and collected in the Bill of Entry is without the authority in terms of the law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd vs. Commissioner - 2015 (318) ELT 607 (SC). He further submits that in the appellant M/s Sedna Impex's own case, the Principal Bench of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 50356- 50372/2023 in Customs Appeal No. 52166 of 2016, held that prior to 17.07.2015, the only condition in Notification No. 30/2004- CE was that no CENVAT credit should have been availed on the inputs used in manufacture of the goods. It is obvious that the CENVAT credit will not be available at all if the goods are manufactured outside India and therefore, it is impossible to have availed CENVAT credit on the goods manufactured outside India. Therefore, it is fair to assume that no CENVAT credit was availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of imported goods and consequently, the condition that no CENVAT credit should have been availed is fulfilled with respect to imported goods. In this regard, he also relies on the following decisions: * Sedna Impex India Pvt Ltd vs. CC, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were allowed benefit of above notification vide Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/CUS/D-II/ICD/325-332/2016 dated 28.03.2016 in the matter of Soir International. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the department reiterates the findings of the impugned orders. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the decisions relied upon by the appellants cited above. We note that there are mainly two issues involved in the present case:- Issue (i): whether the value of impugned goods can be enhanced on the basis of DRI alert or not? Issue (ii): whether the appellants are entitled for benefit of exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 or not? 7. As the issue (i), regarding enhancement of transaction value on the DRI alert, is concerned, we find that this issue has been considered by various benches of the Tribunal and it has been consistently held that the declared value cannot be enhanced simply on the basis of DRI alert which was sought to be done in the present cases. In this connection, we may refer to decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. As the issue (ii), regarding benefit of exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, is concerned, we find that this issue has also been considered by the Tribunal in number of cases as relied upon by the appellants cited supra. In this connection, we may again refer to decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Artex Textile Private Limited reported as 2017 (9) TMI 1011 CESTAT CHANDIGARH wherein the Tribunal has observed as under: "2. The said issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case and vide Final Order No. C/A/55993- 56023/2016-CU[DB] dated 17.11.2016, it was observed as under: 5. After hearing both the sides, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a recent decision in the case of SRF Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai reported as 2015 (318) ELT 607 (S.C.) has considered identically worded Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01/03/2002 which has the identical clause of the manufacturer having not availed the cenvat credit. Its stand held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that CESTAT denied the exemption from CVD only on the ground that condition of non-availment of cenvat credit was not fulfilled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
