Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cc, New Delhi vs M/S P.K. Impex on 22 May, 2012

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi  110 066.

Date of Hearing :  22.5.2012
                         
Custom Appeal No. 235 of 2008

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/Cus/257/ICD/D-II/07 dated 31.12.07 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), New Delhi]

For Approval & signature : 

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member 

1.	Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?	
2.	Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?	
3.	Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?	
4.	Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?	

CC, New Delhi                                                                         Appellant

Vs.

M/s P.K. Impex                                                                    Respondent

Appearance:

Appeared for Appellant     : 	 Shri A. Jain, A.R.                                                            

Appeared for Respondent  :    None
                                           
 						                                

CORAM: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member Order No.dated. Per D.N. Panda :

There was no evidence before the first appellate authority to disturb the declared value. In absence of any contemporaneous evidence, he recorded in page 3 of his order that he did not find scope to interfere to the adjudication done against the Bill of Entries. In the present appeal, Revenue has brought NIDB data for consideration. Nothing was explained as to how such data will be helpful if remand is made. Finding no scope to hold that remand shall result with productivity, Revenue appeal is dismissed. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member (Mathew John) Technical Member RM