TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (5) TMI 183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring on 30-5-1997. He has pleaded that both the appeals are similar and the other appeal may also be heard with this appeal dispensing with the pre-deposit of the amount. In the appeal C/V-224/97, he pleaded that the Tribunal has granted dispensation of the penalty taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.  With the consent of the DR, Shri Arulswamy, the prayer of the learned Consultant was allowed and the other appeal No.C/V-255/97 was also linked with the appeal C/V-224/97. The pre-deposit of the penalty as levied in that appeal for the reasons for which we have granted stay in appeal C/V-224/97, is allowed and both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 3.  The machines imported in bot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when new. Kindly reply by return fax on No. 044-5230474. KONICAS 'PORE P/L Fax : 654750733 25 Sep.' 96 10:06  P .01/01 KONICA SINGAPORE PTE LTD. 401 COMMONWEALTH DRIVE 01-04 HAW PAR TECHNOCENTRE SINGAPORE 149598 TEL: 4731377 FAX: 4750733 FAX TRANSMISSION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, MADRAS 1 FAX NO. : 00 91 44 5230474 ATTN : MR S RAVISELVAN,ASSISTANT &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice is concerned, the price is given for retail sale in Singapore. He pleaded that the authorities below have adopted this as the basis of deducing the value of the second hand machines imported. His plea is that in terms of Rule 8(2)(iii), the law prohibits adopting the value for customs purpose on the basis of price of the goods in the domestic market of the country of exportation. He has pleaded that the authorities have fixed the value of the appellant's goods under Valuation Rules and for that reason this provision as stated above under Rule 8 comes in the way of the department adopting the value as intimated in the fax as the basis for fixing the value. In this connection, on perusal of the papers we found that there is an invoice fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er equipment, we have considered the other invoice of Konica Corporation for this item also since an invoice of Konica Corporation is available, the price as given in that i.e. US $ 11,650 could be taken into reckoning for consideration. 9. The learned Consultant has pleaded that since they have got a commercial invoice, that alone should be accepted for the purpose of assessment. He has, however, not been able to show us any correspondence leading to the negotiation of the price between them and the suppliers and in that background taking into consideration the value in the invoice, we have found as not acceptable the value in the Chartered Engineers' Certificate, we are of the view that the correct value for assessment purpose can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng depreciation on 1989 price worked out on that basis. The price of both would workout to Rs. 9,90,498/-. He has pleaded, since 1989 price was adopted that should be taken as the year of manufacture and not 1991. He has pleaded that the learned Collector took the year of manufacture as 1991 for the reason that the machine had been discontinued as per the fax received from Konica Corporation from 1991, i.e. 5 years ago from the date of the fax. 12.  The learned JDR could not indicate specifically as to how the year of manufacture could be taken as 1991. He has pleaded that the basis is only the fax from Konica, Singapore. 13.  We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that there is hard evidence produce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted the Chartered Engineers certificate, as in the absence of any other evidence as to the year of manufacture, we have no other option but to take the year as in the Chartered Engineer's certificate as a correct evidence on record. 15.  We, therefore, take that the price of both machines should be fixed based on the price of the Printer Processor as US $ 29,100 in the year, 1989 and for the Film Processor as US $ 11,650. The depreciation should be given taking the year of manufacture as 1989 and give a depreciation thereon as has been adopted by the department from 1989 onwards. The value on the basis we are informed shown by the learned Consultant are over 4 Lakhs each as set out in Para 24 of appeal memo. Inasmuch as the value a....