TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been stated by Member (Technical). He has ultimately suggested that the matter has to be re-heard. The note prepared by Member (Judicial) in the form of questions and the Member (Technical)'s disagreement of these questions raised is extracted herein below :- Since there has been difference of opinion between the two Members of this bench who heard the matter, the Registry is directed to place this file before the Hon'ble President to refer it to a third member to resolve the issue. 2. The following point is required to be considered by the Third member. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, prices mentioned in the LME Bulletin can be taken as basis in enhancing the value of the impugned goods and accordingly appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive of the view taken on the valuation of the consignments. This difference between the two orders has not been brought out in the note recorded by the Member (Judicial) for reference to the 3rd Member. 5. Even in respect of valuation of the two consignments, it is not merely a question as to whether the Metal Bulletin price can form the basis of valuation. The main question to be decided is whether in the circumstances of the case, when the invoices in question are suspect in regard to the weight and value recorded thereon, whether the Transaction Value Method of Valuation can at all be applied specially in the light of the decision of the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Calcutta v. Sanjay Chandiram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides have filed written submissions. 3. It is the submission of ld. JCDR that Member (Judicial)'s order is not in terms of law and the citations referred to. She supports the opinion expressed by Member (Technical) while disagreeing with the questions raised by Member (Judicial) and submits that Member (Judicial) ought to have addressed himself to the questions arising in the appeal and should have properly answered the same. She also submits that the question of mis-declaration leading to confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty was not considered by Member (Judicial) and therefore the suggestion of Member (Technical) for being re-heard is the right course of action in this matter. 4. Ld. Counsel supports the view and submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case already stated, this matter is required to be re-heard by a fresh Bench. In view of both the Members not having arrived unanimously on the points of difference of opinion, I agree with Member (Technical) for re-opening of the appeal to be heard by a separate Bench. The matter may be placed before the Circuit Bench for hearing this appeal on 11th October, 2004 at Hyderabad as the Consultant submits that he has come from Hyderabd and it would be convenient for him to argue the matter before the Circuit Bench which has already fixed its hearing from 11th October, 2004 onwards. Registry shall list this matter for re-hearing on 11th October, 2004 before the Circuit Bench, Hyderabad. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
