Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, Amritsar vs M/S Enkay (India) Rubber Company Ltd on 29 August, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Date of Hearing : 29.8.2012 Custom Appeal No. 715 of 2007 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 127/CUS/Appl/JAL/2007 dated 24.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh) For Approval & signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would 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 of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? CC, Amritsar Appellant Vs. M/s Enkay (India) Rubber Company Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for Appellant : Shri Govind Dixit, A.R.
Appeared for Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar Tiku, Sr. Manager
CORAM: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
Order No.dated.
Per Archana Wadhwa :
As per the facts on record the respondents exported rubber bladders to Pakistan by declaring the value of Rs.25.56 per piece. As the said consignment was rejected by their buyer on the ground that bladders were defective, the same was re-imported into the country. The respondents claimed the benefit of Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.95. However, as the return of the goods, was beyond the period of one year, as contained in the said notification, the benefit was not extended by the lower authority.
2. At the time of re-import of the goods, the appellant declared the value as Rs.2.06 per piece. Revenue was of the view that the original value declared at the time of export of the goods is required to be adopted for the purposes of payment of customs duty. On the other hand, it was the contention of the respondents that the goods being defective and rejected by their customers, the value of such defective goods is considerably low and in fact they contended that the goods being rubber bladders, are of no value. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the respondents stand and held total assessable value would be Rs.7,224/- and confirmed the demand of Rs.3,670/-.
The said order of the Commissioner is challenged before us.
3. On going through the ground adopted by the Revenue in their memo of appeal, we find that the Revenue is assessing the re-imported rejected and defective goods in terms of the Valuation Rules meant for first time import of the goods. Admittedly, the present goods are re-import of already exported goods. The same are defective and rejected by the customers and as such we do not agree with the Revenue to apply Valuation Rules for adopting the original transaction value between the buyer and the seller in terms of provisions of Rule 4, as prayed for by the Revenue. No infirmity is found in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We also do not find any merit in the submission of ld. AR that value of 2.06 declared by the respondent is on the lower side in the absence of any evidence adduced by Revenue to show that such declaration should have been higher. Accordingly appeal filed by Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Mathew John) Member (Technical) RM