2015 (11) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Scanner Machine (Model 2003) 31,000 2. Used and Old GE DXI CT Scanner Machine (Model 2001) 29,000   Total 60,000   The appellant submitted a Chartered Engineers certificate dated 15.03.2010 issued by Mr. Hirose Akira, Japan, according to which the machine manufactured in 2001 was valued at US$ 29,000 and another one manufactured in 2003 was valued at US$ 31,000, which were the values declared by the appellant. The appellant also submitted another inspection report issued by Mr. Ramesh C. Agarwal, Chartered Engineer, Jaipur, who estimated the value of the two machines at US$ 66,000. Revenue obtained the information from the website of 'Dotmed', which indicated US$ 1,15,000 as the value of GE High Speed DXI CT Scanner of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nity to cross-examine the Chartered Engineer. (iv) The declared value should be accepted and there was no ground available to reject the same. It cited the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Eicher Tractors Vs. Union of India [2000 (122) ELT 321 SC] in support of the said proposition adding that that judgement has been followed by CESTAT like in the case of Metplast IndiaVs. CC, Nhava Sheva [2004 (173) ELT 59 (Tri.-Mum)]. (v) Onus was on Revenue to prove the under-valuation, which has not been discharged. (vi) The website relied upon by the Commissioner is an auction website and the value was often changing. (vii) It was not a case for confiscation or imposition of penalty as there was no mala fide or mis-declaration. The appellant cite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... avail as with the goods not being available and valuation earlier having been consented, the onus will be on the appellant to establish that the valuation as per his consent suffered from fatal infirmity and such onus has not been discharged. Further, valuation of such goods requires their physical inspection and so re-assessment of value in the absence of goods will not be possible. The case of Eicher Tractors Vs. Union of India (supra) cited by the appellant is not relevant here as in that case there was no evidence that the assessee had consented to enhancement of value. 6. We find that the CESTAT's judgement in the case of Vikas Spinners Vs. CC, Lucknow [2001 (128) 143 (TRI Del],CESTAT, dealing with a similar situation, held as under:....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly accepted the correctness of loaded value of the goods as determined in the presence of their Representative/Special Attorney and paid the duty thereon accordingly."(emphasis added) Similarly, in the case of Guardian Plasticote Ltd. Vs. CC (Port), Kolkotta [2008 (223) ELT 605 (Tri. Kol.)] CESTAT has held as under:- "4. The learned Advocate also cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vikas Spinners v. C.C., Lucknow - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 143 (Tri.-Del.) in support of his arguments. We find that the said decision clearly holds that enhanced value once settled and duty having been paid accordingly without protest, importer is estopped from challenging the same subsequently. It also holds that enhanced value uncontested and vo....