Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Customs vs Swan Press on 17 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(184)ELT93(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Heard both sides.
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. In this case the respondents made import of second hand used Heidelberg Speedmaster 4 colour offset printing machine and declared the value of Rs. 43,18,760/-. The Revenue after rejecting the value declared by respondents enhanced the same by applying Rule 8 of Rs. 76,95,900/- minus 66% depreciation.
4. The contention of the Revenue is that they had made enquiries and the manufacturer of the machine informed the Custom authorities that the value of the new machines and taking into consideration the value of the new machines and after allowing the depreciation, the value was enhanced. Therefore, the impugned order whereby the enhanced value was set aside is not sustainable. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gajra Bevel Gears v. CC reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 612.
5. The contention of the respondent is that they produced the Chartered Engineer's certificate and according to this certificate the value is the same which is declared by them. The contention is also that there is no evidence on record to show that during the same period some other machine was imported at a higher value. The respondents also brought to our notice that if the value of the machines in the year 1997 which is the year of manufacture is taken into consideration that will be of DM 10 lakhs. During the relevant time when the goods were imported the value of Deutgsche Mark was equal to Rs. 19.55 and if this value is applied the gross cost of the new machine will come to Rs. 1,75,95,000/- and if the depreciation was applied to this value the assessable value will come almost the same value which was declared by the respondents.
6. In the present case the appellant made import of machine and declared the value of the machine as per the invoice. The appellant also produced the Chartered Engineer's certificate in support of their claim. The Revenue is not disputing the Chartered Engineer's certificate, which provides the same value and had not relied upon on any other import showing higher value of the same or similar goods. The Revenue enhanced the value after taking into consideration the value of the new machine after allowing the depreciation. The Revenue relied upon the decision of Gajra Bevel Gears (supra). In this case the action of Revenue for applying Rule 8 was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as there was discrepancies in the year of manufacture of the goods in the invoice and the year of manufacture of the machines. In such a situation the application of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The facts of the present case are different. In the present case there is no dispute regarding the year of manufacture. There is no evidence on record to show that respondents had not declared the true transaction value. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.