Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, Lucknow vs M/S. G.S. Suitings on 14 March, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
BENCH-DB
Custom Appeal No.C/443 & 626/2009 -CU[DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 77,78-CUS/ALL/09 dated 05.05.2009 passed by Commissioner of Custom (Appeals), Allahabad]
CC, Lucknow Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Today Synthetics
M/s. G.S. Suitings Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Puri, DR Present for the Respondent : Shri Amit Awasthi, Advocate Coram: Honble Mr.D.N.Panda, Judicial Member Honble Mr.Manmohan Singh, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 14.03.2014 FINAL ORDER NO. 51153-51154 DATED: 14.03.2014 PER: D.N.PANDA Being aggrieved by the order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who held that there was no mis-declaration of the value of the imports made from Nepal, Revenue came in appeal before Tribunal.
2. Respondent supports the order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The same exporter had supplied goods to Indian buyers and value of goods imported by them were higher the value declared by Respondent. The imports were within a span of 17 days and 33 days respectively in both appeals. Record does not exhibit whether such evidence were confronted to the assessee respondent for rebuttal.
4. It is settled principle of law that no comparison can be made without the basis being determined and put to test. No doubt the supplier may be same but the imports should be comparable and the terms and conditions of the import should also be at par including the quantity of the goods. None of the authorities examined these aspects. While ld. Adjudicating authority enhanced the value, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the same for no good reason stated in the order but only on the misplaced sympathy that there was global economic melted down. Such concept is not acceptable to law since law gives rise to a decision based on evidence and reasoning either to reach to a decision affirmatively or negatively.
5. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals are remitted to ld. Adjudicating authority to confront the basis for enhancement and hearing the appellant granting reasonable opportunity, shall pass appropriate order.
6. Ld. Counsel for Respondent at this stage submits that the authorization is not in order, since that is signed on different dates. We are guided by decision of Honble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CCE, Kanpur vs. Ufan Chemicals and do not entertain the contention of the respondent.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(MANMOHAN SINGH) (D.N.PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Anita 2 2 C/443 & 626/2009 -CU[DB]