TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des. 3. Before we proceed further, the case of the department against the appellant is explained in brief. M/s. Jogani Tyres (India) had imported and cleared 1,426 Michelin brand tyres as detailed below : S. No. Tyre Size No. of Pcs. (Truck Tyres) Bill of Entry No. & date Invoice No. Value (US$) Per piece 1. 7.50 R15 x 135G Michelin Brand 150 2910 dated 8-5-95 24/95 dated 13-3-95 of M/s. Inter ocean Merchantile Co., Singapore. 25 2. 7.50R 15 x 135G Michelin Brand 160 7313 dated 20-6-95 40/95 dated 12-5-95 of M/s. Inter Ocean Merchantile Co., Singapore. 25 3. 7.50R 15 x 135G Michelin Brand 558 1302 dated 10-4-96 97/96 dated 23-3-96 of M/s. Inter ocean 25 4. The appellants submitted invoices issued by Interocean Merchantile Co., Singapore while filing bill of entry. In some cases, value was enhanced at the time of clearance by the excise officers which was accepted by M/s. Jogani Tyres. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, department procured two invoices raised by M/s. Michelin, Bereich Vertrieb, Bannwaldallee 5, - Postfach 210951 dated 29-2-96 and 15-7-96. Both these invoices showed the value of the tyres as 79.78 US do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also appeal has to be rejected. (iii) Further, he also submitted that the value had been enhanced after assessing the goods provisionally and therefore the department cannot enhance the value second time for the same consignment. (iv) After twelve days of recording of statements, Shri Lalit B. Jogani retracted his statements and therefore the same cannot be relied upon. (v) He also submitted that the invoices received from German Customs assuming that they are acceptable, would still cannot be utilized for enhancing of value in respect of the consignments imported one year before namely in 1995. No contemporaneous evidence of importation had introduced for enhancing the value. (vi) Further, he also submitted that an importer is not bound to import goods only from manufacturer but he is free to import from anybody. (vii) Further, Shri Kantawala, learned advocate also submitted that no relationship has been proved between the importer and exporter and therefore value could not have been enhanced. (vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acturer which is obviously an error committed both in the show cause notice and the Order in Original, it would not affect the proceedings. The basis of proceedings is that the original manufacturer's invoice has been received from German Customs and these invoices show a much higher price and on that basis undervaluation is sought to be established. The decisions cited by the Commissioner as regards quoting of a wrong rule or a section would apply to this aspect also. It cannot be said that appellants are ignorant of the facts since it was they who had manipulated the invoice. Whether the invoice mentioned is that of Michelin Hong Kong or Germany, the only way the appellants could have rebutted the evidence to show that the goods were valued correctly was to get a letter from the supplier in support of their contention that the value was actually what was declared by them. If the price declared by the appellant was correct, supplier who had done business with them would not hesitate to come to their assistance. The very fact that the appellants did not even make an effort shows that the evidence produced by the department can be relied upon. (v) &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ards the fact that invoice has not been signed, we do not find that this is a proper rebuttal of the evidence produced by the department. In this connection we find that the decisions cited by the learned advocate are not applicable to the facts in this case. In the case of Mebajeona Stud Farm v. CC, Mumbai reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 330 (Tri.-Mumbai), the Tribunal held that unsigned invoice relied upon by Revenue which is approximately eight months after import of mares cannot be relied. It is not the case of the appellants in this case that the invoice was more than eight months after the import. In the case of Galaxy Funworld Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T. 332 (Tri. - Mumbai), the proposal for enhancement of value on the basis of unsigned invoice of manufacturer was rejected in view of the fact that there was no clear admission by the director of the importing firm and the department had relied upon only on the invoice and there were no evidences of contemporaneous report. In this case the invoice has been forwarded by German Customs; the invoice produced by the importer was of a Singapore trading firm; the invoice sent by German Customs showed the cons....