Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs (Acc & Export) vs Cipla Ltd on 3 August, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No.C/333/03 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.48/2003 AP Val dated 20/02/2003 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Airport, Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, 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 :
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?
====================================================== Commissioner of Customs (ACC & Export), Mumbai Appellant Vs. Cipla Ltd., Respondent Appearance:
Shri.V.K. Singh, SDR for appellant Shri.B.Narayan, Advocate, for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. S. S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 03/08/2011 Date of Decision : 03/08/2011 ORDER NO Per: S. S. Kang
1. Heard both sides.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order accepted the transaction value declared by the respondent in respect of the goods imported.
3. The Revenue is relied upon the quotation of the supplier to say reject the declared value and the Revenue is also questioned the trade discount.
4. We find that it is a settled proposition of law that the value cannot be enhanced on the basis of the quotation. There is no evidence on record to show that the respondents had paid over and above the declared price of the imported goods. The trade discounts are acceptable principles in the international trade. It is not the case of Revenue that the trade discount is to suppress the value of the goods. In view of the above, we find no merits in this case, the same is dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President pj 1 2