TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2.The assessee exported 4.8 lakh pieces of coffee mugs between February and November, 2001. The export price (FOB) was US $3.40 per piece. The exported goods were eligible for Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Benefit/Scheme. Accordingly, the same was claimed as per Rules at the rate of 11% or 10%. The assessee had declared a market value of Rs. 52.50 per piece which was worked out at 150% of the assessee's purchase price which was Rs. 35/- per piece. These purchases were made from the manufacturers in Rajasthan and as per the clearance documents of Central Excise (AR-4), Rs. 35/- was the price per piece. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Customs proceeded against the assessee by alleging that the assessee had mis-declared the FOB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppearing on behalf of the Revenue assailed the order of the Tribunal and pointed out that there could not be such a vast variation in between the domestic price of Rs. 35/- per piece and the declared FOB value of Rs. 157/- per piece, therefore, it was obvious that the assessee had claimed inflated price with the sole objective of getting undeserved DEPB credit. Learned counsel secondly contended that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the evidence on record regarding the price. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the matter was completely covered by a decision of this Court in Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 423 (S.C.) = (2003) 6 SCC 161. 6.As against this Shri M. Chandr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce. Learned counsel further urged that those authorities could not have been allowed to "imagine" the price. Learned counsel further invites our attention to the findings by the Tribunal in para 4 of its judgment wherein the Tribunal has clearly held that there was no material on record to indicate that the export price declared by the appellant was not genuine or that the transaction was at a different price. Our attention was also drawn by the learned counsel towards further finding that the market value declaration made by the appellant is also fully supported by its purchase price from the manufacturer in India. Learned counsel also argued that the Tribunal has correctly held that the finding regarding the FOB price being Rs. 80/- per p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been put to support the contention of the learned counsel that the FOB price is inflated. In this behalf we cannot ignore the documents supplied by the assessee before the Revenue which we have already mentioned earlier. It is not a case of the Revenue that the assessee has not received the FOB price at all. That is clear from the BRCs. Therefore, the FOB price is supported amply by the BRCs with which no fault is found. Once that is clear, there will be no question to hold that the FOB is inflated. 10.As per the policy also the credit has to be linked with the FOB price. Again we cannot ignore the fact that the PMV is also correctly fixed and is within the permissible limits i.e. 150% of AR4 value. The market value is fixed at Rs. 52.5....