Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Aneja Steels vs Cce, Noida on 13 May, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Date of Hearing : 13.5.2015 Appeal No. C/112/2010-CU(DB) (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 36/Commr./9-10 dated 28.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida) For Approval & Signature : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, 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? M/s Aneja Steels Appellant Vs. CCE, Noida Respondent
Appearance:
None - for the Appellant
Shri M.R. Sharma, D.R. - for the Respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
F. Order No. 52065/2015
Per R.K. Singh :
Appeal is filed against order in original No. 36/Commissioner/09-10 dated 28/01/2010 in terms of which 3.9 MT of goods were ordered to be mutilated, classified under Customs Tariff Heading 7204 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 ordered to be confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act 1962, redemption fine of Rs. 1,30,000/- imposed, the value enhanced upwards to US $ 37447.43 (C&F) from the declared value of US $ 26529.75, and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- levied under section 112 ibid.
2. The appellant had imported high-speed steel scrap and declared assessable value of Rs. 13,16,890/-. The Revenue alleged the goods to be reusable tools of the cutters etc. and undervalued. The Commissioner after proper verification and in the wake of expert opinions held that the goods cannot be reused and thus accepted the appellants description of the goods in the Bill of Entry. However, the Commissioner held the goods to be undervalued and consequently passed the order as above.
3. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant. In its appeal the appellant has contended that once the goods were found to have been correctly described in the Bill of Entry, there was no basis for not accepting the declared value and there was also no ground for ordering mutilation. It is also contended that no basis has been given to reject the transaction, value and to revise the value upwards.
4. The Ld. D.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that the adjudicating authority has accepted the declaration of the appellant as regards the description of goods. Therefore, it is hard to fathom as to why the mutilation of the goods was warranted, though, we note that the appellant had agreed for such mutilation before the Commissioner. As regards the valuation, we find that various experts consulted by Revenue gave different values and out of those values, the value given by M/s Bureau Veritas India Private Limited was accepted because as per the Commissioner that appeared to be most appropriate and fair and was also found to be in the price band of NIDB data. However we do not find any evidence in the impugned order whether the NIDB data relied upon was relating to the comparable quantity of identical or similar goods where the expression identical goods and similar goods have the meaning given in Rule 2 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). We find that one of the persons whose opinion was sought gave the value which was even lower than the value declared by the appellant. The transaction value was sought to be rejected as per the Show Cause Notice essentially because the goods were alleged to be mis-declared in description thereof. Once the goods were held to have been correctly described by the appellant, the very basis of rejecting the transaction value disappeared, even more so in the wake of the Commissioner ordering mutation of the goods. In the circumstances, we do not find any basis for rejecting the transaction value and also for arriving at the revised value as per the requirement of the said Rules. Indeed in the impugned order there is not even a whisper as to how and on what basis the transaction value was rejected even after accepting the appellants description of goods as correct. It is a settled law that resort to the said Rules for revising the value of the imported goods can be had only after the assessing officer rejects the transaction value in terms of Rule 12 of the said Rules on account of having reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value. The impugned order does not disclose any basis for any such reasonable doubt after having accepted the description of the goods to be correct. Thus, we do not find the upward revision of value sustainable and as a consequence there remains no ground to order confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 111(m) ibid leading to redemption fine and penalty.
6. In the light of the analysis above, the appeal is allowed.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (R.K. Singh) Member (Technical) RM 4