Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi vs M/S.Century Metal Recycling Pvt.Ltd on 19 October, 2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
DIVISION BENCH
COURT NO.3
Customs Appeal No.730 of 2007
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CC(A)/Cus/63 to 75/ICD/D-II/07 dt.22.6.07 passed by the CC(A), New Delhi)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 19.10.2011
For approval and signature:
Honble Mrs.Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr.Mathew John, 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 should 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 Departmental authorities?
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Century Metal Recycling Pvt.Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri Anil Khanna, SDR
Present for the Respondent: Shri G.S.Agarwal, Advocate
Coram: Honble Mrs.Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr.Mathew John, Member (Technical)
ORDER NO._______________
PER: ARCHANA WADHWA
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Anil Khanna, learned appearing for the Revenue and Shri G.S.Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. The dispute in the present appeals relates to value of imported goods declared by the respondents in the bill of entry. The value was enhanced by the assessing officer on the bill of entry itself. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is no reason for rejection of transaction value or enhancement of value. Further by following Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of Eicher Tractors Limited-2000 (122) ELT 321, he observed that the transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence produced by the department with regard to quantity, quality, country of origin and place and time of import. As such, he held that there was no evidence brought on record on the part of the revenue, he allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeals filed by the Revenue.
3. On going through the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue, we find that there is no reference of contemporaneous higher prices of identical goods. Reference is placed only on NIDB data which cannot be made basis for enhancing the value in the absence of positive evidence showing transaction value to be incorrect. Further Revenues stand that the importer failed to submit manufacturers invoice or manufacturers price list, by itself cannot be held to be a ground for enhancing the value unless the evidence to the contrary is shown. As such, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the Revenues appeal is rejected.
(Pronounced in the open court) (ARCHANA WADHWA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (MATHEW JOHN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) mk 4