TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... came out at Rs.7.053 per piece. The Commissioner entertained a doubt about correctness of the said value declared by the appellant and accordingly undertook 100% examination on first check basis on 29.01.2013. It was found that the belts were PU belts with buckles having a trade mark 'Tuff Line'. The relevant information was downloaded from internet on various websites like www.cheapestinindia.com and other such websites and it was found that the costs of the belt ranged from Rs. 99/- to Rs. 148/-. Accordingly, Revenue entertained a belief that the value declared by the appellant was liable to be rejected in terms of Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the same is required to be re-determined. Accordingly, vide their letter dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant relied upon various decisions of the higher Courts wherein it stand held that in the absence of concrete evidence, the transaction value cannot be rejected and is required to be adopted as the correct assessable value. They also contended that there is neither any allegation nor any evidence that additional consideration has gone back to the foreign supplier. 3. The above pleas and submissions made by the appellant were not accepted by the original adjudicating authority who enhanced the value to Rs. 32.39 per piece. Being aggrieved with the said enhancement the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which also stands rejected by him. Hence the present appeal. 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e transaction value should be taken as correct value unless there is evidence to the contrary. Further, it is well settled law that unless there is additional consideration involved or any of the exception of Rule 4(2) are attracted transaction value cannot be rejected. Reference can be made to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Bombay) vs. BUREAU VERITAS - 2005 (181) ELT 3 (SC) and Tolin Rubber (P) Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin - 2004 (163) ELT 289 (SC). 6. In the present case, we find that the Revenue has not produced any evidence to show that there was any additional consideration flowing back from the appellant to the foreign supplier, in which case the Revenue is bound to accept the declared transaction....