Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Prayas Woollens Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 12 August, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II Appeal No. C/355/04 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 101/2004-MCH dated 01.04.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Custom House, Mumbai]. For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : Seen
of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
======================================================
M/s. Prayas Woollens Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai
Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. A. K. Prabhakar, Advocate
for Appellant
Mr. D. K. Sinha, A. C. (AR)
for Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 12.08.2015
Date of Decision: 12.08.2015
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
The Appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 101/2004-MCH dated 01.04.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Custom House, Mumbai, wherein the Ld. Commissioner rejected the appeal in case of four imports under Bills of Entry No. 9811/25-3-99, 10983/26-3-99, 5369/15-4-99 and 2152/16-5-99 and allowed the appeal in two cases under Bills of Entry No. 9580/22-6-99 and 4309/10-6-99.
2. The facts of the case is that the appellant M/s. Prayas Woollens Pvt. Ltd. imported rags under five Bills of Entries. It was noticed by the appraising group III that goods have been imported at lower price than the prevailing international market price. The goods were provisionally released on execution of PD Bond/Bank Guarantee/Revenue deposit pending enquiries in the matter. The Additional Commissioner adjudicated the case and ordered to enhance the value as per the prevailing international market price.
Aggrieved by the original order, the appellant filed the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, who allowed the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the show cause notice was not issued and natural justice was denied to the appellant. Aggrieved, the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal; the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-
Appeal and remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals). In the remand proceeding the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order allowed the appeal in case of two Bills of Entry and rejected the appeal in respect of four Bills of Entry. Being aggrieved by this impugned order, the appellant is before us.
3. Shri A. K. Prabhakar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that both the lower authorities enhanced the value on the contemporaneous price obtained in relation of similar goods during November 1998 to November 1999, however no material was ever produced by the department in support of contemporaneous price of goods. He further submits that before applying the said contemporaneous price, the revenue has not verified the various aspects such as quality, country origin, colour, grade and various characteristics etc. of the goods. In absence of this verification, price of contemporaneous import cannot be applied. In the present case, the goods imported is rags which is a residual product, not a standard product. Therefore, in case of this product, it is difficult to have a uniform price of rags which is having different characteristics, therefore merely by taking price of contemporaneous import without providing any documents, it is very difficult to ascertain that goods imported by the appellant and so called contemporaneous goods are same. Therefore, the enhancement made by the lower authority is arbitrary and without any basis, therefore the same is not sustainable.
4. On the other hand, Shri D. K. Sinha, A. C. (A R) appearing on the behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
5. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides. We find that though in the adjudication order the authority has relied upon the price of contemporaneous goods, but no any evidence in support of contemporaneous import was adduced. The goods imported by the appellant is rags which admittedly a residual product. The residual product cannot be of standard quality. As regards its characteristics, quality, size, shape, colour etc. it various from consignment to consignment.
6. Since no evidence was produced by the Revenue, enhancement of the price of the impugned goods appears to be without any basis. It is a trite law that for applying the price of contemporaneous goods, it is necessary to ascertain that the goods is of same character, quality, quantity, country of origin etc. and without ascertaining the same, the adoption of price of contemporaneous goods cannot be treated as price of contemporaneous goods. Due to the said deficiency in the whole proceeding, we are of the considered view that there is no sufficient basis for revenue to enhance the value of imported goods. We, therefore, modify the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Dictated in Court)
(P.S. Pruthi) (Ramesh Nair)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Saifi
4
Appeal No. C/355/04