Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennnai vs M/S. Futura Polymers Ltd on 4 August, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/CO/72/2004 & E/93/2004
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 131/03 (M-I) dated 15.10.2010, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
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 the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
CCE, Chennnai : Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Futura Polymers Ltd. : Respondent
Appearance Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the appellant Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Adv., for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 04.08.2010 Date of decision : 04.08.2010 ORDER No._____________ Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Heard both sides. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the impugned goods namely Amorphouos Chips of normal grade have been sold at a price which closely approximates the price of contemporaneously imported goods from other countries. Though in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules, imported goods from other countries cannot strictly be considered to be similar goods but, such goods being broadly comparable, acceptance of price of such comparable goods contemporaneously imported for the purpose of valuation of goods sold by the respondent EOU cannot be faulted with. In fact, we have rejected another appeal No. E/94/04 filed by the department against the very same respondents today, where proposed enhancement of the value by the department was rejected, since the value adopted closely approximated price of contemporaneously imported comparable goods. We see no reason to apply a different standard in this case.
2. We also find that the department has challenged the lower valuation of amorphous chips of sub-standard grade. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents states that the value for sub-standard goods cannot be same as for normal grade and that the respondents have adopted a value for such sub-standard goods, which is only lower by 10%. In view of the fact that the impugned goods are of sub-standard grade is not under challenge, adoption of a lower value by only 10% cannot be called into question.
3. Accordingly, we find that on both accounts, the departments appeal is not maintainable and hence the same is rejected.
4. The cross-objection filed by the respondents is in the nature of supporting the impugned order and hence the same is dismissed.
(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
3