Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search βœ•
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
β•³
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
βœ•
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close βœ•
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

        <h1>Customs valuation enhancement upheld for aluminum scrap imports after appellant admitted undervaluation under Rule 12</h1> CESTAT New Delhi upheld customs valuation enhancement for imported aluminum scrap under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The appellant had ... Challenge to enhancement of the value - imported aluminum scrap of various grades - rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, JSB Aluminium had made a categorical statement in the letters that it was accepting that the value declared by it in the Bills of Entry was lower than the value at which identical/similar goods had been imported at or about the same time in comparable quantities and in comparable commercial transactions and so the value declared by it in the Bills of Entry should be rejected under rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules and re-determined under rule 9 on the price made known to it by the Assessing Officer, which price was acceptable to JSB Aluminium - The Assessing Officer was, therefore, not required to give reasons for rejection of the transaction value and determination of the assessable value. 10. It is well settled that what is admitted is not required to be proved by the department. This issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in Systems & Components [2004 (2) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that 'Once it is an admitted position by the party itself, that these are parts of a Chilling Plant and the concerned party does not even dispute that they have no independent use there is no need for the Department to prove the same. It is a basic and settled law that what is admitted need not be proved.' The decision of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors [2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT] on which reliance has been placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to hold that the transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence, would not be applicable to the facts of the case. Thus, for the reasons recorded in this order, and the reasons recorded by the Bench in Century Metal for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the present impugned order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the 17 appeals deserves to be set aside and is set aside. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the enhancement of the value of imported goods by the Assessing Officer.2. Acceptance of the enhanced value by the importer.3. The role of consent letters submitted by the importer.4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd.5. The principle that what is admitted need not be proved.6. Reliance on previous orders and decisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the enhancement of the value of imported goods by the Assessing Officer:The Assessing Officer doubted the correctness of the value declared by the importer in the Bills of Entry based on contemporaneous import data of similar goods. The importer was informed of the grounds for rejecting the declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and the value was subsequently enhanced. The importer accepted the enhanced value and paid the differential customs duty, leading to the clearance of goods.2. Acceptance of the enhanced value by the importer:The importer submitted letters stating that they accepted the value proposed by the Assessing Officer, acknowledging that the declared value was lower than the value of similar goods imported at the same time. The letters explicitly mentioned that the importer did not want any personal hearing or speaking order and requested the re-determination of the value and re-assessment of duty as proposed.3. The role of consent letters submitted by the importer:The consent letters played a crucial role in the re-assessment process. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the importer's appeals, setting aside the enhancement of the value and accepting the value declared in the Bills of Entry. However, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) ignored the consent letters, which contained categorical statements from the importer accepting the enhanced value and waiving the right to a personal hearing or speaking order.4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd.:The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd., which held that transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence. However, the Tribunal found this decision inapplicable because, in the present case, the importer had accepted the enhanced value proposed by the Assessing Officer and waived the right to a show cause notice or speaking order.5. The principle that what is admitted need not be proved:The Tribunal emphasized that what is admitted need not be proved, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. The importer's acceptance of the enhanced value in the consent letters meant that the department was not required to prove the correctness of the enhanced value.6. Reliance on previous orders and decisions:The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously set aside the enhancement of the assessable value in similar cases involving other importers. However, the Tribunal noted that this earlier order was set aside by the Tribunal in a subsequent decision. The Tribunal also referred to its decision in Century Metal, where similar issues were considered, and the importer's contention of coercion in submitting consent letters was examined.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the department's appeals, maintaining the enhancement in the value of the imported goods by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the consent letters submitted by the importer, which accepted the enhanced value and waived the right to a personal hearing or speaking order. The Tribunal also clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd. was not applicable in this case due to the importer's acceptance of the enhanced value.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found