2006 (3) TMI 476

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atter was initially adjudicated and the Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 84/05-Cus., dated 20-10-2005 had partly remanded the matter, which is subject matter of Appeal No. 417/05. After de novo, the matter came up again before the Commissioner (A) who decided the matter by Order-in-Appeal No. 3/2006-Cus., dated 20-1-2006 which is subject matter of Appeal No. C/29/06. 2. The issue pertains to enhancement of value of the imported second-hand used printers. The said printers were freely importable and do not require Licence. It is only the question of valuation which is under challenge. The Chartered Engineers certificate was not accepted by the department and the Revenue enhanced the value based on the valuation available in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v. CC, Bombay reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 612 (SC). (iii)   He also submits that the transaction value is required to be accepted when there is no proof of any sum having been sent by the appellants through any other source. They have produced the proof of transfer through bank which should be accepted as the correct value. (iv)   He also contended that minor discrepancies in the quantity of goods cannot be a ground for discarding the transaction value declared by the importer as held by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. International Trade and Affairs v. CC, Hyderabad reported in 2003 (162) E.L.T. 584 (Tri.-Bang.). (v)     He also relied on a number of Orders-in-Appeals of the same Commissi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Strips Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 570 (Tri.-Del.) (f)       Om Shiv Enterprises v. CC (Airport), Chennai - 2003 (160) E.L.T. 202 (Tri.-Chennai) (ix)   He contended that the RF has to be fixed as 10% of value of goods and penalty 5% of the value of goods as held in the case of M/s. Big Apple Computer v. CC, Hyderabad vide Final Order Nos. 231 and 232/2005, dated 14-2-2005 passed in Appeal Nos. C/31/2003 and C/39/2003 and Final Orders No. 957 and 958/2005, dated 20-6-2005 passed in Appeal Nos. C/241/02 and C/236/04 and also in the case of Rex Printing Press, Bangalore v. CC, Kolkata vide Final Order No. 1980/04, dated 15-12-2004 passed in Appeal No. C/200/04 [2005 (184) E.L.T. 73 (....