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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2004 (8) TMI 605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....year Tyre & Rubber Company, USA imported nine numbers of used tyre curing press from M/s. Goodyear Philippines Inc., which is also a subsidiary of M/s. Goodyear, USA; that they had declared the assessable value as Rs. 2,66,62,491/- that the goods were examined on first check basis by the Customs Authority who found certain discrepancies with regard to the year of manufacture and they also wanted to enhance the value to the extent of 30 to 35% approximately; that they waived the issue of show cause notice and appeared for personal hearing before the Commissioner on 11-7-2003; that after the personal hearing the Commissioner has constituted a panel consisting of the officers of Machinery Expert, Group Appraiser, Docks Appraiser and Assistant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n respect of remaining seven machines in question. Finally, he submitted that the method of determining the value of the imported goods had not been indicated in the impugned Order or made known to them at any point of time; that, therefore, the value cannot be enhanced. Regarding two machines being more than 10 years old, he submitted that substantial reconditioning and refurnishing of these machine had taken place in 1998-2000 and, therefore, both the supplier and the Chartered Engineer had certified the year of manufacture as 1998; that therefore, the year of manufacture has to be taken as 1998/2000 only; that in any case the penalty and the redemption fine imposed on them are excessive.  3.Countering the argument Shri R.C. Sankhla....