TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant prevails as Tribunal rejects enhanced value, fines, penalties</h1> <h3>M/s. Kelvin Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & ST, Meerut and Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & ST, Meerut Versus M/s. Kelvin Infotech Pvt. Ltd.</h3> M/s. Kelvin Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & ST, Meerut and Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & ST, Meerut Versus ... Issues Involved:1. Enhancement of assessable value.2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.3. Alleged mis-declaration of goods.4. Validity of transaction value under Customs Valuation Rules.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Enhancement of Assessable Value:The appellate authority confirmed the enhancement of assessable value done in the bill of entry, which was contested by the appellant. The enhancement was based on market inquiries, Sony dealers' inquiries, and NIDB data. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the declared value was lower than the market value, leading to the enhancement.2. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:The original adjudicating authority imposed redemption fine and penalty along with the enhanced assessable value. The appellant challenged this imposition, arguing that the transaction was for a stock lot of various models and sizes of LCD TVs, sold on an 'as is, where is' basis, and thus the declared value was accurate.3. Alleged Mis-declaration of Goods:The Revenue alleged mis-declaration due to the appellant not specifying the brand, size, and model numbers of the imported LCD TVs. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported this view, stating that the appellant's failure to provide detailed information indicated a mis-declaration and malafide intention.4. Validity of Transaction Value under Customs Valuation Rules:The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Rule 3(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, which allow for the rejection of transaction value if there are doubts about its accuracy. The Commissioner concluded that the transaction value could be rejected based on the evidence collected, including market inquiries and NIDB data.Judgment Analysis:Enhancement of Assessable Value:The Tribunal found that the enhancement of value was based on assumptions without concrete evidence. The appellant had provided all relevant details, including the nature of the stock lot and the terms of the sale. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value should be accepted unless there is strong evidence to prove otherwise, as held in the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd. vs. CCE Mumbai.Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:The Tribunal noted that the imposition of redemption fine and penalty was unjustified as the transaction was legitimate and the declared value was accurate. The Tribunal set aside the orders imposing redemption fine and penalty, providing relief to the appellant.Alleged Mis-declaration of Goods:The Tribunal observed that the appellant had declared the correct quantity, size, and brand of the goods. The terms of the sale contract indicated that the goods were a stock lot of assorted models, making it impractical to provide detailed model numbers or country of origin for each piece. The Tribunal found no evidence of mis-declaration or malafide intention.Validity of Transaction Value under Customs Valuation Rules:The Tribunal held that the transaction value should be accepted unless there is substantial evidence to reject it. Mere doubts or assumptions are insufficient to reject the transaction value. The Tribunal cited various decisions, including Radhey Shyam Ratanlal vs. Commissioner of Customs Raigadh and Commissioner of Customs vs. Bureau Veritas, to support this view.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing the appeals of the assessee and rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of assessable value, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, and allegations of mis-declaration were not justified based on the evidence presented. The transaction value declared by the appellant was found to be accurate and should be accepted.Disposition:All three appeals were disposed of in favor of the assessee, with consequential relief granted. The Revenue's appeal was rejected.
TaxTMI 