Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Rathi Impex vs Cc (Port Import), Chennai on 15 February, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
C/266/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No. 316/2010 dated 01.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai).
M/s. Rathi Impex Appellant
Vs.
CC (Port Import), Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Krishnanandh, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision: 15.02.2018 FINAL ORDER No. 40425/2018 Per Bench The appellant filed Bill of Entry dated 17.12.2008 for clearance of goods described as Blue Berry brand baby corn in Brine, Sweet Kernel Corn and Lychee in syrup. The appellant had declared the FOB value of Rs. 2,81,400/-. The original authority enhanced the value to Rs. 8,84,200/-. Against the said Bill of Entry the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the order impugned herein rejected the appeal observing that the appellant has accepted the prices and therefore cannot put forward a grievance by filing an appeal when there has been no protest to pay the duty as per the enhanced value.
2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel, Shri S. Krishnanandh reiterated the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the goods were imported for the festive season of Christmas and New Year and the goods had limited shelf life. The consignment being live was incurring heavy demurrage. In such situation, the appellant submitted a letter to the assessing group stating that they are ready to accept the enhanced value and requesting to release the cargo. Basing on this letter the value was enhanced by the lower authority and the appellant had to pay duty of Rs.2,73,218/-. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel that the value has been enhanced without any basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on technical grounds stating that the appellant having not put forward any protest and having accepted the enhanced value, cannot prefer an appeal. He relied upon the decision in the case of CC, Delhi Vs. Maruti Fabric Impex 2016 (343) ELT 963 (Tri.-Del.) and argued that the appellant accepted the enhanced value so as to avoid detention and demurrage charges, the subsequent challenge of enhancement before the higher appellate forum amounts to the effect that such enhanced value was not accepted by the assessee and they are not stopped from contesting the same. He stressed on the point that the goods imported were of perishable nature and the appellant in order to get release of the goods had accepted the value enhanced by the department. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Techno Doors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (Airport & Cargo), Chennai, vide the Final Order No. 42350/2017 dated 04.10.2017, had remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The Ld. AR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC, reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the appellant has accepted the enhancement of value and therefore cannot file an appeal alleging grievance of enhancement of value. The appellant has put forward the situation under which they had to accept the proposal for enhancement of value. The goods were of perishable nature and being festive season the appellants had to obtain release of the goods so as to reduce financial loss. Taking these facts into consideration and also the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Techno Doors Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the matter can be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals), who shall reconsider the appeal on merits. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on)
(MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
BB
1