Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, New Delhi vs M/S Virasat Electronics on 29 September, 2014
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 : 29/09/2014. DATE OF DECISION : 29/09/2014. Customs Stay Application No. 54206 of 2014 in Appeal No. 53770 of 2014 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/CUS/ICD/326/ 2014 dated 25/04/2014 passed by The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), 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, New Delhi Appellant Versus M/s Virasat Electronics Respondent
Appearance Shri Sanjay Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant.
Ms. Neha Meena, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53926/2014 Dated : 30/09/2014 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal alongwith the stay petition.
2. In as much as the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is non-executable order, we reject the stay petition filed by the Revenue.
3. Further as a short point is involved, we proceed to decide the appeal itself.
4. As per facts on record the respondents imported Nylon Elastic Tape (stoc lot) and filed a bill of entry dated 07/01/14 by declaring the total value of the goods as Rs. 5,67,164/-. The said value was enhanced by the assessing officer to Rs. 19,78,557/-.
5. On appeal Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there is no reasoning given by the assessing officer to enhance the value. No reference stand made to any other contemporaneous bill of entry or NIDB data or any other acceptable mode of enhancement including any market inquiry etc. He further observed that in as much as there is no evidence on record that the appellant had paid additional amount to the seller over and above the invoice value, the transaction value cannot be rejected. He further observed that the appellants have also produced another bill of entry wherein identical goods imported by other importers were assessed at the transaction value. As such by referring to the Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) as also to the Tribunals decision in the case of CC, New Delhi vs. Marble Art reported in 2003 (289) E.L.T. 346 (Tri. Del.), he set aside the enhancement of the value.
6. Revenue in their memo of appeal have neither produced any evidence to show that excess payment was made by the importer or has also not disputed the fact of contemporaneous bills of entries. They have simply gone to the arithmetical calculations of value starting from the cost of the raw material. We note that the goods were Stock Lot goods and as such the method adopted by the Revenue, based upon the cost construction basis, cannot be appreciated. As such, we find no infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals). Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected. Stay petition is also disposed of.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court.) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
3