Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2000 (5) TMI 733

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellant entered into contract dated 21-12-1989 with the foreign supplier M/s. Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd., London for import of 150 MT of Special High Grade Zinc of 99.99% minimum purity at the agreed price of US $ 1440 PMT. Detailed specification of the goods were mentioned in the purchase order placed by the appellant. Total agreed price of 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in letter dated 24-7-1990 addressed by the local agent of the foreign supplier. The remaining goods under the said contract were thereafter shipped by the foreign supplier under invoice dated 29-7-1990 by charging the agreed contracted price of US $ 1440 PMT. In the invoice for this shipment at page 26 the number and date of the contract was also duly mentioned. It is in respect of this remainin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on record that there was no scope to ignore the transaction value when the contract between the appellants and the foreign supplier was a genuine one and the foreign supplier was not related to the appellants. On the date of entrying into the contract the international market price of the goods was US $ 1440 PMT and that was also the quoted price in metal bulletin of the London Metal Exchange. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... E.L.T. 100 (Tribunal) = 2000 (36) RLT 484 ; 2000 (37) RLT 573 ; 2000 (36) RLT 622 and a number of other decisions. The gist as all these decisions is that the invoice price cannot be discarded except on the strength of a clear evidence that the invoice is not genuine and does not reflect the transacted price. The burden of proving the charge of undervaluation lies heavily upon the department and ....