Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc (Icd), New Delhi vs M/S Swastic Trading Co on 20 March, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 20/03/2013. DATE OF DECISION : 20/03/2013. Customs Appeal No. 236 of 2008 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. CC (A)/Cus/258/ICD/D-II/2007 dated 31/12/2007 passed by The Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters 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 (ICD), New Delhi Appellant Versus M/s Swastic Trading Co. Respondent
Appearance Shri Nagesh Pathak, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 55888/2013 Dated : 20/03/2013 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Nagesh Pathak, learned DR appearing for the Revenue, nobody represented the respondent.
2. On going through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), we find that he has rejected the Revenues contention for enhancement of the assessable value of imported Non-Texturised Lining Cloth by observing that Revenue has not produced any evidence firstly for rejection of the transaction value in terms of the Boards Circular No. 16/2003 dated 17/03/2003 and secondly ha snot advanced any evidence to show that the said value was wrongly declared by the appellant and the same was higher in respect of other contemporaneous imports. For holding as above, he has referred to various precedent decision of the Tribunal as also Honble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Limited vs. CC reported in 2000 (12) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.).
3. Revenue in their memo of appeal has referred to NIDB data as there is no direct evidence reflecting upon the under valuation of the imported goods. It is well settled that NIDB data cannot be adopted as a reason for enhancement of the assessable value. In the absence of any other evidence, we find no merits in the Revenues appeal. The same is accordingly rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
2