TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (6) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s Maxworth Plywood Private Limited. Penalties have been imposed on the Director of M/s Maxworth Plywood Private Limited and the Chief Executive of M/s. Truwoods Private Limited. Therefore, six appeals have been filed. 2. The appellants imported Wood Veneers. In respect of both the appellants, the period of import ranges from 1997 to 2000. Initially, the goods were cleared on payment of duty on the basis of the value declared by the appellants. These values are the invoice values forwarded to the appellants. The foreign supplier of wood veneers is M/s. Pargan Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore. Payments have been made through banking channel. The Customs Department, long after the import, after certain investigations, came....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same supplier M/s. Pargan Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore. The enhancement of value was based on documents obtained from the Italian/Spanish Customs The Tribunal, held that the export documents cannot be the basis for enhancing the transaction value when contemporaneous imports indicate that goods have been imported in and around at or about the same price at which the goods have been imported by the assessees. Further, the Tribunal has noted that the insurance covered for the transaction has not been disproved by the authorities. The ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable to the present case. (ii) The Transaction value can be rejected only in certain exceptional circumstances enumerated in the proviso to sub-rule 2 of Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....148 (Tri.-Del.), has held that in the case of stock lots, the invoice value is to be accepted. (iv) It was urged that the value declared for insurance is the best reference to determine the intrinsic value of the goods imported. The following case-laws were relied on: a. Bureau Veritas Vs. CC, Mumbai - 2003 (156) ELT 688 (Tri. - Mumbai) Affirmed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2005 (66) RLT RLT 877 (SC)=2005 (98) ECC 834 (SC) b. Mirah Dekor, New Delhi Vs. CC, New Delhi -1988 (35) ELT 357 (T) c. Delhi Plastics Vs. CC, 1988 (36) ELT 360 (Tribunal) d. Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CC, Madras - 1996 (86) ELT 97 (Tri.) It is on record that the Insurance policy obtained by M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the same was not supplied to the appellants. In fact the appellants requested the department to supply those documents. The lower authority has not allowed the appellant to cross-examine the representative of M/s. MSAS Blue Skies. (viii) In. respect of M/s. Maxworth Plywood Pvt. Ltd., the demand relates to Bills of Entry dated.10.09.1997 and 28.10.1998. The corrigendum was issued on 31.12.2003. The corrigendum revised the demand of duty and in fact, enhances it by placing reliance on a fresh set of documents. Therefore; this is to be considered as a fresh Show Cause Notice only. As the corrigendum is beyond five years from the date of the Bills of Entry, the demand would be hit by limitation. (ix) Since the demand itself is not ....