Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai vs M/S. Pushpanjali Silk Pvt. Ltd on 27 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/147/2006
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No.285/2006 dated 13.4.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Pushpanjali Silk Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Appellant Ms. L. Mythili, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 27.09.2016 Final Order No. 41633 / 2016 Per D.N. Panda Revenue argues that the contemporaneous import made in Calcutta Port as is appearing in para 4 of the show cause notice was just a day after the import made by the Bill of Entry No. 805156 dated 30.8.2005 by the appellant. The value declared was USD17.52 in the contemporaneous import but the appellant declared the value at USD13. When there is a data available very near to the present import and that too after the present import, the value of the contemporaneous import has to be accepted. Revenue relies on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1998 (98) ELT 292 (SC).
2. Respondent on the other hands supports the appellate order.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. We do not find a comparable basis in absence of the source of supply, terms and conditions of supply as well as quantity of supplies. The judgment relied on by Revenue categorically shows that the supplier is same, quantity supplied is also brought out clearly and there was no much difference between the date of imports. Once the conditions of supplies are known to the importer and that is hidden, then Revenue would have made a case in their favour. But that is not the case in the present appeal. The contemporaneous value cannot be treated as contemporaneous in absence of details relating to source of supply, quantity and conditions of contract. Therefore, Revenue is not benefitted from the Apex Court judgment cited supra.
5. We do agree with the serious contentions of Revenue but in absence of comparable value, it is difficult to accept such contention. Learned AR supports the adjudication and opposes the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). We fully agree with learned AR that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has gone only for the comparison of the contemporaneous evidence without looking to the valuation rule as is agitated by learned AR. But to come to rescue of learned AR, the ingredients of valuation have not also been invoked in the show cause notice.
6. In view of the above, Revenue appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) (D.N. PANDA)
Technical Member Judicial Member
Rex
2