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>Tribunal rules for respondent in duty drawback valuation dispute emphasizing need for concrete expert evidence</h1> <h3>CC, New Delhi Versus M/s Pashupati Industries Inc.</h3> CC, New Delhi Versus M/s Pashupati Industries Inc. - 2017 (358) E.L.T. 840 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Valuation of export goods for duty drawback scheme.2. Reliability of opinion of Chartered Engineer in determining the value of goods.3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in cases of payment of drawback.Analysis:Issue 1: Valuation of export goods for duty drawback schemeThe case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of readymade garments exported under the duty drawback scheme. The Revenue alleged that the declared value of the goods was inflated to obtain a higher drawback. The Adjudicating Authority relied on the opinion of a Chartered Engineer to reduce the value of the goods, resulting in a penalty imposed on the exporter. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside this decision, questioning the reliability of the Chartered Engineer's opinion.Issue 2: Reliability of opinion of Chartered EngineerThe respondent argued that the Chartered Engineer's opinion was not based on a proper analysis of factors relevant to valuing readymade garments, such as yarn composition, quality, size, and design. They contended that the Chartered Engineer's assessment was merely an eye-estimation and lacked a factual basis. On the other hand, the Revenue heavily relied on the Chartered Engineer's expertise in valuation.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in cases of payment of drawbackThe respondent raised preliminary objections, including the undated review order and the lack of grounds for appeal. They also argued that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over cases involving payment of drawback. However, the Tribunal first addressed the merits of the case, finding that the Chartered Engineer's opinion was not reliable for valuing readymade garments. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, emphasizing the importance of a thorough analysis in determining the value of exported goods under the duty drawback scheme. The judgment highlighted the need for expert opinions to be based on factual evidence rather than mere estimations, especially in cases involving complex products like readymade garments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
