Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Cls Woollen Mills vs Commissioner Of Customs (I), Mumbai I on 29 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
C/1302/05
(Arising out Order-in- Appeal No. 117/2005 JNCH dated 12.04.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Raigad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical)
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 No 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. CLS Woollen Mills
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai I
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.R. Reddy, AC (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 29-09-2016 Date of decision : 29-09-2016 O R D E R No: ..
Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. 117/2005 JNCH dated 12.04.2005.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue that falls for consideration in this appeal is regarding the valuation of woollen rags imported by the appellant. The revenue authorities were of the view that the declared price of the woollen rags was very low and hence it was provisionally cleared. Subsequently, the bill of entry was finalised by enhancing the value. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred appeal before the first appellate authority, who also did not agree with the contentions raised and upheld the enhanced value on the basis of contemporaneous imports.
4. Ld. counsel submits that identical issue and in respect of the very same woollen rags imported in the case of Amritsar Exports Ltd. 2005 (180) ELT 101 Tribunal held that the goods which are imported were different and the value which has been enhanced seems to be different. He submits that the very same price has been considered by the lower authorities in the case in hand.
5. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the lower authorities have not clearly indicated as to how the goods which were imported and the contemporaneous value which has been sought to be applied are the same. The first appellate authority has not brought on record as to what was the goods which were imported in contemporaneous imports. The contemporaneous imports value only talks about original rags, unicolour rags, commercial all wool and does not indicate that the same were woollen rags.
6. Be that as it may, we find that the ld. counsel was correct in stating that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amritsar Exports Ltd. (supra). We reproduce the entire order:-
Common issue is involved in both the appeals. Therefore they are being taken up together.
2. The appellant made import of original Woollen Mix?. Hosiery Rags and in the Bill of Entry, declared their value of the goods 0.24 US $ per Kg. This value was not exempted by the Revenue authorities and value was enhanced as follows :-
(a) Original Rags US $ 0.32 /Kg. CIF (b) Unicolour Rags US $ 0.37 /Kg. CIF (c) Commercial All Wool US $ 0.70 /Kg. CIF
?2. The contention of the appellant is that they are engaged in the manufacture of blankets and these hosiery rags are used in the manufacture of blankets. The value was enhanced without any evidence. Adjudicating authority simply mentioned that rags are being imported at Mumbai Port as well as other Custom House at the higher value than the declaration made by the appellant.
?3. We find that the adjudicating authority in the adjudication order simply enhanced the value on the ground that some imports of woollen synthetic hosiery rags at Mumbai Port as well as in other Custom Houses were made at a higher value.
?4. We find that rags is not a standard product of manufacture. Therefore, the enhancement of the value on the basis of other imports of rags cannot be made unless and until it is proved that the rags are of same quality. In the absence of this evidence the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.
7. It can be seen from the above reproduced decision of the Tribunal that the issue is same and squarely covered in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Operative part pronounced in Court) (Raju) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) //SR
- 4 -
C/1302/05