Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Commissioner Of Customs, ... vs M/S. Truwoods Pvt. Ltd. on 26 August, 2015
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2584 OF 2006
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM ... Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. TRUWOODS PVT. LTD. & ANR. ... Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1461 OF 2007
O R D E R
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
The respondent No. 1 - assessee had imported certain material known as “wood veneers” of various thickness ranging from 0.25 mm to 0.45 mm and these supplies were received from M/s. Pargan Singapore, Singapore. Bill of Entry was filed stating the particular value of the goods as per the invoices raised by the exporter in Singapore.
According to the Revenue, the respondent had not disclosed the correct price and it was a case of under-invoice. Four show cause notices were issued alleging under invoicing and demanding differential duty, etc. Four adjudication orders-in-original were passed confirming the demand of differential duty.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.09.04 10:35:04 IST
It would be pertinent to observe that in support of its Reason: case, the Revenue had produced certain documents purported to C.A. No. 2584/2006 etc. 1 have been issued by Italian customs authorities as per which the price of these very goods was shown higher by the manufacturer of these goods through whom the goods were purchased by M/s. Pargan Singapore for sale to the assessee. The assessee had challenged the admissibility of these documents in evidence on the ground that they are not authenticated. This argument has been accepted by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT'). CESTAT has found that the documents procured by the Revenue do not bear any signatures and are photocopies which are not even attested and accordingly, the assessable value could not be enhanced on the basis of such documents. In arriving at this conclusion, while doubting the genuineness of those documents, the CESTAT has kept in mind the provisions of Section 139 of the Customs Act and has relied upon various judgments of the Tribunal on this issue.
After going through the detailed analysis undertaken by the CESTAT in this behalf, we do not find any error therein.
These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
........................, J.
[ A.K. SIKRI ] ........................, J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi;
August 26, 2015.
C.A. No. 2584/2006 etc. 2 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.12 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 2584/2006 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. TRUWOODS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) (With office report) WITH C.A. No. 1461/2007 (With Office Report)
Date : 26/08/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. R. Nedumaran, Adv.
Mr. Jitin Singhal, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Adv.
Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv.
Ms. L. Charanaya, Adv.
Mr. S. Vasudevan,Adv.
Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, adv. Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. Anandh K., Adv.
Ms. Disha Jain, Adv.
Mr. Rachit Jain, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(Nidhi Ahuja) (Renu Diwan)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file.] C.A. No. 2584/2006 etc. 3