TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the time of clearance of goods the importer did not object to the enhancement of the value and cleared the goods on enhanced value without any protest or objection, (ii) it is not correct for Commissioner (Appeals) to say that the consent of the importer even in writing is not legally sustainable, (iii) in the case of CC, Amritsar Vs. Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (227) ELT 209 (Tri.-Del)] , CESTAT dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the value enhanced by the proper officer was accepted by the assessee who paid duty without any protest. Ld. Departmental Representative. 3. The respondent stated that the primary adjudicating authority did not comply with the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew Delhi vs. K.D. Exports 2008(227) ELT 494 (Tri-Del). Thus, due to non application of mind at the time of enhancing the declared value, avoidable and unproductive work is being created. In the end, no revenue accrues to the exchequer. This merry go round has to stop. To avoid such unpleasant situation, it is necessary on the part of assessment officer to uphold the majesty of law, as also to follow judicial discipline. 6. One of the main grievances of the Appellants in the subject appeals is that they have been denied that benefit of section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 because no speaking order has been issued. I also find that the Department has not adduced any evidence to reject the value and that no legally permissible steps were fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order in original nos. 270, 271 and 272 directed the assessing officer to pass a speaking order in the case justifying the action taken by the department. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the evidence on record and I find merit in the contention of the department that the value of the goods appeared to be low. Data was verified from the NIDB and accordingly transaction value was rejected and declared value was loaded as provided under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, 1988. Order: I thus hold that the assessment is in order." In respect of appeal filed the respondent against the Order-in-Original dated 28.07.2009, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal observed as under:- "4. At the outset, it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the transaction value is not acceptable. At the same time, no reason has been given why the transaction value cannot be determined under Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the said Rules. In view of these reasons, the enhancement of the declared value is arbitrary and not based on any valid legal grounds, and, therefor, liable to be set aside." From the foregoing, it is clear that in spite of clear directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 07.08.2008 (reproduced above), the Order-in-Original dated 28.07.2009 was issued by disregarding those directions of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) is right in observing that the said Order-in-Original dated 28.07.2009 is not sustainable as no details have be....