Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Gupta Steel,Bhavnagar vs Commissioner Of Customs, Jamnagar on 2 September, 2015
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3891 OF 2006
M/S. GUPTA STEEL, BHAVNAGAR ... Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR ... Respondent
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3892 OF 2006
O R D E R
The appellant herein is engaged in business of ship breaking. It was a sole proprietorship concern of one Mr.Shivchand Gupta. He was operating from Bhavnagar, Gujarat. The appellant entered into Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) dated 23.08.2000 with the owner of one vessel for import of the said vessel for the purposes of breaking the same. Few days thereafter, another MoA dated 30.08.2000 was signed which was, in fact, an amendment to the first MoA. By this amendment, the price which was reflected in the earlier MoA was marginally reduced. The ship arrived and thereafter, Bill of Entry was filed by the appellant on 01.09.2000 disclosing the price which was agreed to be paid Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.09.17 by the appellant to the owner of the vessel as per the 17:44:51 IST Reason: revised MoA dated 30.08.2000. The assessment was done on C.A. No.3891/2006 etc. 1 that basis and assessment order dated 18.03.2002 was passed by the assessing officer accepting the value mentioned in the Bill of Entry. The Revenue filed the appeal against the order of the assessing officer contending that the value mentioned in MoA dated 23.08.2000 should have been the valuation for the purpose of levying the import duty. This appeal was allowed by the Commissioner and the order of the Commissioner has been upheld by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT'). Challenging that order, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.
After going through the facts of this case and the manner in which the first MoA dated 23.08.2000 was amended by MoA dated 30.08.2000, we find that the price was genuinely revised and a lesser price was agreed to be received by the owner of the vessel and therefore, there was nothing wrong on the part of the appellant to declare that price in the Bill of Entry. We, thus, are of the opinion that the duty should have been assessed on the basis of value declared by the appellant and the assessment made on 18.03.2002 by the assessing officer did not call for any interference.
We, thus, set aside the order of the CESTAT and allow this appeal.
C.A. No.3891/2006 etc. 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3892 OF 2006 In view of the aforesaid order in Civil Appeal No. 3891 of 2006, this appeal stands allowed.
........................., J.
[ A.K. SIKRI ] ........................., J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi;
September 02, 2015.
C.A. No.3891/2006 etc. 3 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.13 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 3891/2006 M/S. GUPTA STEEL, BHAVNAGAR Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR Respondent(s) (With office report) WITH C.A. No. 3892/2006 (With Office Report)
Date : 02/09/2015 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv.
Mr. S. Vasudevan, Adv.
Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. Anandh K., Adv.
Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. R. Ramchandran, Adv.
Ms. L. Charanya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv.
Mr. C. Mukund, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Anandh, Adv.
Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Nidhi Ahuja) (Renu Diwan)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file.] C.A. No.3891/2006 etc. 4