Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Voith Turbo Pvt. Ltd vs Cc,Ce&St, Hyderabad-Ii on 4 July, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE Court I(DB) Date of Hearing:04/07/2013 Date of decision:04/07/2013 Application No.C/Stay/25881/2013 Appeal No.C/25647/2013 (Arising out of Order-in-original No.09-10/2012-Adjn.(Cus)(Commr.) dt. 30/11/2012 passed by CC,CE&ST, Hyderabad-II) M/s. Voith Turbo Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant(s) Vs. CC,CE&ST, Hyderabad-II ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. R. Subramanyam, Chartered Accountant for the appellant.
Mr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member(Technical) Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member(Judicial) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy] The appellant is importing engineering spare parts from their parent company and selling it in India. On finding that the same parts have been sold at substantially higher prices to other customers in India and appellants are receiving the same goods at much lower prices and this is because of relationship between the importer and exporter (importer being the subsidiary of exporter), investigation was conducted and proceedings were initiated and impugned order has been passed as a consequence whereby the assessable value had been redetermined by invoking the residual method of Customs Valuation Rules and consequential differential duty with interest has been demanded and penalty also has been imposed.
2. After hearing both sides, we find that the very same issue in the case of same appellant and on the result of same investigation, proceedings had been initiated by Mumbai Air Cargo Commissionerate and the issue had come up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had granted unconditional stay vide Order No.S/1095/2012/CSTB/C-I dt. 07/08/2012. Since we find it so, in this case also requirement of predeposit has to be waived and stay has to be granted. However, after hearing both the sides for quite some time, we find that this matter is to be remanded in any case when the final hearing takes place because of the observations which will follow. For this reason, we consider it appropriate that the requirement of predeposit has to be waived and appeal itself should be disposed of at this stage so that finality can be reached earlier.
3. On going through the records and hearing both sides, we find that in the show-cause notice in para 25 the basis for redetermination of the assessable value under the residual method of Customs Valuation Rules has been stated to be as per the documents such as purchase orders of final customers; tax/commercial invoices and the value shown in the tax invoice excluding the packing charges and local taxes. Since the amount confirmed is equal to the amount worked out in the show-cause notice, it can be safely assumed that the Commissioner also has followed the same logic in arriving at the assessable value. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that even the benefit of reduction of customs duty from the traded price in India has not been extended. This, in our opinion, would not be correct at all and is contrary to the provisions of law. In any case, even in the Order-in-Original or in the show-cause notice, the exact elements of the price which have been incorporated to arrive at the assessable value on the basis of traded price by the appellants in India have not been explained. In our opinion, there is a need to work backwards form the traded price to show what are the elements taken into account and what are the elements excluded so that it becomes clear that value has been arrived in accordance with the provisions of law to anyone who goes through the order. As we have already stated that from the para 25 of the show-cause notice and from the order, it is not possible to make out what are elements that are taken into account and whether all the elements that should be excluded in accordance with law have been excluded. Under these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to remand the matter at this stage itself to the original authority who shall proceed to decide the matter afresh and give detailed analysis and conclusion and the basis for arriving at the value so that it becomes clear as to whether the assessable value arrived at is in accordance with the residual method and law or not. Needless to say that the appellants shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before the final decision is taken and after hearing them, a well reasoned order should be passed with the details as already mentioned above. We make it clear that we have not expressed our opinion on any point. All issues are kept open.
4. Stay application as well as appeal get disposed of in above manner.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)
( ASHOK JINDAL ) (B.S.V. MURTHY)
MEMBER(JUDICIAL) MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
Nr
4