Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc (Import & General), New Delhi vs M/S Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd on 30 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. IV DATE OF HEARING : 30/03/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 30/03/2016. Customs Appeal No. 54323 of 2014 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. CC (A)/Cus/D-1/I&G/378/ 2014 dated 25/04/2014 passed by The Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Custom House, New Delhi.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters 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 Lordships wish to see the fair : copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? CC (Import & General), New Delhi Appellant Versus M/s Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri Ranjan Khanna, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Nair, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 51085/2016 Dated : 30/03/2016 Per. B. Ravichandran :-
This appeal by Revenue is against order dated 25/04/2014 of Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, New Delhi. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. They are regularly importing components, spare parts, capital goods etc. from their foreign supplier who is, admittedly, a related person. The valuation for the purpose of customs duty is to be done by Special Valuation Branch of the Custom House after following the procedure prescribed in this regard. The Special Valuation in respect of these impugned goods has been in vogue for past many years. The Original Authority conducted a periodical review of such valuation and the valuation determined in terms of order dated 15/4/2010 was taken up for review. After calling for required details of the importers and on scrutinizing the connected documents like agreement, invoice etc. the Original Authority vide his order dated 19/3/2013 held that the value in respect of goods imported by the respondent from foreign suppliers may be accepted as transaction value under Rule 3 (3) (a) of the Valuation Rules subject to usual check and scrutiny.
2. Revenue preferred appeal against the said order which resulted in issue of the impugned order. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the finding of the Original Authority. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue is before us.
3. The main ground of Revenues appeal is that the lower Authorities failed to appreciate the applicability of Rule 3 (3) (a) of the Valuation Rules readwith the interpretative notes for the said Rule. It was also contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) do not have power to pass an interim order directing Department to file counter within 30 days for a final view and at the same time disposing of the appeal technically. Revenue contended that such direction is bad in law.
4. We have heard both the sides. We find the main point of contention in the present proceedings are regarding valuation of imported goods involving transaction between related persons. The admitted facts are that the importer/exporter, terms of agreement, general nature of product remained the same throughout. The proceedings initiated which resulted in the original order dated 19/3/2013 is for periodical review of earlier order of Special Valuation issued on 15/4/2010 with addendum dated 07/7/2011. It is admitted by both the sides that the said order become final. On review the valuation was confirmed and order was passed on 19/3/2013 accepting the transaction value. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the finding of the Original Authority. He categorically observed that the Department on earlier occasions has investigated the matter on valuation of imports made by the importer considering the relationship with the exporter. The Department through various orders has accepted the declared invoice value as transaction value in respect of imported goods. We find that in the present appeal, the Revenue has not brought forward any material to allege a change in the fact or circumstances as applicable to the past and upheld for the future imports by the Original Authority. We also find the Original Authority as well as the first Appellate Authority have examined and gave categorical findings regarding the acceptance of transaction value. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, we find no ground to interfere with the orders of the lower Authorities. Even on the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observation directing the Department to file a further counter within 30 days, we find such direction is of no consequence as the Revenue has not followed up the same and only propriety of such direction is being questioned. On merit, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the findings of the Original Authority and on careful consideration of the grounds of appeal, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower Authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
4