TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in it was alleged that they had mis-declared the DTA sale price by adopting the export price of VCR as against the actual transaction value of VCR when sold in the DTA. The notice proposed to value these goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 on the basis of transaction value charged from the buyers in the DTA and demanded differential duty amounting to Rs. 4,27,31,173/- invoking a larger period from 19-10-1995 to 31-3-1998. 2. The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original dated 31-12-1998 wherein he held that the VCR cleared by them into the DTA were required to be valued in terms of Rule 7A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules 1998 and confirmed a duty liability of Rs. 25,20,344/- without in posing any penalty, even though he held that the extended period is rightly invoked. This Order was challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its Order dated 2-3-2000 set aside the Order-in-Original and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise. 3. The above Order-in-Original dated 31-12-1998 was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms Valuation Rules 1988 including Rule 7A. From the records the Commissioner observed that there has been import of a similar item by the noticee himself during the above said period whose CIF value as per the bill of entry was adopted for the purpose of valuing the VCRs cleared by the assessee in the DTA and he confirmed duty liability of Rs. 2,16,36,053/- along with interest. 7. It is against the above order that both Revenue and as well as the assessee have come up in the appeal. While the assessee is contending that the Commissioner could not have gone beyond the remand order which required him to determine the valuation under the provisions of Rule 7A of Customs Valuation Rules and could not have demanded duty amounting Rs. 2,16,36,053/- against Rs. 25,20,344/- determined by the Commissioner, the Revenue is also equally aggrieved and is contending that the value should not have been determined on the basis of a single import price but should have been determined as per provisions of Rule 3 of the Valuation Rules that is the transaction value which should be the value at which M/s. Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. sold their VCRs from the depot to their customers. 8. We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal in CCE, Pune v. Champagne India Ltd. - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 134. Therefore, he said the transaction value under Rule 3 had to be accepted. He said that since the value of comparable value was not available, the valuation was sought to be done under Rule 7A, Rules 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Valuation Rules being excluded in the absence of similar or identical goods imports. He therefore applied Rule 7A, which provides for computing value on the cost of raw material, cost of fabrication, processing, profit margin and other expenses. He confirmed the value on this basis. 4. The Commissioner said that the short levy occurred due to "partly suppression of relevant facts and partly ignorance of the relevant rules applicable in this regard. "Such clearance was being assessed for the first time and there was an element of ignorance by the department. He therefore did not impose penalty on the assessee. He however confirmed applicability of the extended period in the proviso to Section 27 (5) of the Act. 5. The advocate for the appellant does not dispute that the value should be determined under Rule 7A. He contends however that the following aspects had not been considered by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich were removed from 100% EOU to DTA. The appellants are, however, filing this appeal for the limited purpose of challenging the order dated 31-12-1998 on the grounds that having invoked the extended period of limitations under the Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the said Act and on the quantification of the allegedly short levied amount of Rs. 25,20,344/-. According to the appellants no duty is payable even for the larger period by following Rule 7A as per the working shown in Exhibit "F" hereto. 10. They have also invited attention to Para 5 of the remand order dated 2-3-2000 in which it has been clearly recorded that "the advocate for the appellant does not dispute that the value should be determined under Rule 7A. He contends however that the following aspects had not been considered by the Commissioner in the order............ He further contends that in any event the Commissioner has not indicated in his Order the basis of costs and expenses on which the value confirmed under Rule 7A was arrived at and the appellant was not given an opportunity to question its correctness; on its own calculation in terms of rules the value of goods is significantly lower than that arrive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e determination of value under Rule 3 as has also been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Polymers Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) that the Tribunal proceeded upon a basis altogether different from that of the demand notice served upon the assessee is not moulding relief but making of new case and also by the Tribunal in the case of Volvo India Private Ltd. v. CC, Chennai - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 489 (Tri. - Bang.) holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot travel beyond the scope of original show cause notice, we observe that it was the Commissioner who if at all has gone beyond the show cause notice in his order-in-original and that part has not been challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal as its appeal was firstly dismissed as time barred and second time again this aspect was not looked into and this order was again not challenged by the Revenue and therefore this plea cannot be taken at this stage. We also notice from the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner's order of 1998 that it was never a ground that remand proceedings of the Commissioner could not have gone beyond the show cause notice. It only stated that the co....