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>Appellate Tribunal upholds Commissioner's valuation decision on paper covered wire strips</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise And ST, Bhopal Versus M/s. Bhopal Wire Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals I), Bhopal, regarding the valuation ... Valuation - paper covered aluminium /copper wire strips, etc. - clearance to sister unit - Held that: - the present appeal by the Revenue simply pleads for remand of matter so that now they can consider CAS 4 valuation in proper prospective. The same is not tenable in view of the fact that original proceedings are for demand of differential duty. No process of valuation under CAS 4 was followed by the Revenue so that, the correctness can be confirmed by the remand proceedings. The proceedings are for demanding differential duty which, as correctly held in the impugned order are not sustainable for want of legal and factual basis. Accordingly, the impugned order is sustained - appeal dismissed. Issues: Valuation of paper covered aluminium/copper wire strips for duty calculation.In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals I), Bhopal, dated 22.2.2017, concerning the valuation of paper covered aluminium/copper wire strips cleared by the respondents to their sister unit. The Revenue objected to the value adopted by the respondent and initiated proceedings to demand a differential duty based on data obtained and ER 1 returns. The original authority confirmed a duty of Rs. 26,05,144/-. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand, stating that the Revenue should have followed the provisions of section 14A to determine the correct cost construction data instead of relying on ER 1 data. The Revenue appealed for a remand to consider CAS 4 valuation. The Tribunal found this plea untenable as the original proceedings were for demanding a differential duty, not for valuation under CAS 4. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the demand was not sustainable due to a lack of legal and factual basis. Thus, the impugned order was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed. The Cross Objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of in the same judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
