Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Customs vs Kumaran Krishna Kutty on 12 May, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(74)ELT931(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
Harish Chander, President
1. Collector of Customs, Cochin has filed the above captioned appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals). Notices of hearing were issued to the party for the hearing of the stay application as well as the appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the same. Shri A.K. Singhal, the learned JDR is present on behalf of the appellant. He pleaded that since the appeal is being heard on merits, he does not press the stay application. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. The respondent has filed written arguments. Shri A.K. Singhal stated that the only issue in the present matter is whether the freight in the assessable value of the car is to be added from the port of shipment or the country of origin. He argued that the issue is settled in favour of the revenue and he referred to the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Cochin v. Johnson Panthakkan vide final Order No. 87/94-A, dated 19th April, 1994. He pleaded that since the freight has to be added from the country of origin and as such, the appeal filed by the Revenue should be allowed.
2. We have heard Shri A.K. Singhal, the learned JDR and have gone through the records and also through the written arguments filed by the I respondent. The issue in the present matter is whether the freight in the! assessable value should be added from the port of shipment or from the I country of origin. The issue has already been settled by the Tribunal in the case I of Collector of Customs, Cochin v. Mr. Johnson Panthakkan vide Final Order No. 87/94-A, dated 19th April, 1994. Para Nos. 2 and 3 from the said judgment are j reproduced below:
"2. We have heard Shri A.K. Singhal the learned JDR and have gone through the records. The Collector (Appeals) in the present matter ordered the loading of the freight at the rate of 20% of depreciation value whereas it should be the actual freight from the country of origin to the country of destination viz. from Germany to India, which is at US $ 1,450/-. The Tribunal in Order Nos. 570 to 575/93-A in Para Nos. 3 and 4 had held as under :
"3. We heard the learned JDR and also gone through the record and written submissions. Shri Singhal pleaded for inclusion of the freight charges in the assessable value on the basis of the country of the manufacture of the car. In support of his arguments he cited a decision of this Tribunal in the case of B.K. Roy v. CC Calcutta, reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 329 (Tribunal). Para Nos. 2 to 8 which are relevant to the issue are reproduced below :-
* * * * * *
4. There is no reason to deviate from the earlier decision of the Tribunal in arriving at the assessable value of the car. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed. During the course of arguments, Shri A.K. Singhal, the learned JDR argued that he does not press any point other than the inclusion of freight charges and as such, the other grounds if at all mentioned are deemed to have been withdrawn. In the result, the appeals filed by the Collector are allowed. The cross objections are also disposed of in the above manner."
3. In view of the above discussion, we order that freight at US $ 1,450/- should be added to the value and not 20% of the depreciated value. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed. Since we have disposed of the appeal, it is not necessary for us to pass any order in the stay application. The stay application is also disposed of accordingly."
3. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the freight in the Assessable value of the car has to be added from the country of origin. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.