TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the assessing group that both the importer and the foreign supplier were related in terms of Rule 2 (2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, accordingly, the issue was referred to the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) and the goods were allowed on resorting provisional assessment. The AC (SVB) vide his order dated 24.05.2012 held that the importer/ respondent and the foreign supplier were related under Rule 2(2) of CVR and held that the invoice price shall be accepted as transaction value and directed the assessing group to finalize all the pending provisional assessment and held that this order is operative for three years up to 23.05.2015. The department reviewed AC's Order and preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e moulds manufactured by the principal supplier and the pressing machines were procured and supplied to the appellant and they were new as well as second-hand ones. He drew attention to the OIO page 21, where the AC (SVB) after examining the agreements and documents and also after satisfying the Chartered Engineers certificate on the deductive value arrived had accepted the transaction value. He drew attention to the grounds of appeal by the department against the OIO which is at page 26 of the paper book and submits that the department preferred appeal only on one ground that the adjudicating authority has not compared with contemporaneous import of similar goods before passing the order. He submits that no other ground was raised before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order, we find that the AC(SVB) in his order after examining the agreements and documents and CA certificate accepted the invoice price as transaction value. When the Revenue initially reviewed the said OIO, we find that there is only one ground on which the Revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the adjudicating authority has not compared the value of contemporaneous import of similar goods before passing his order. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that para 6 & 7 of clearly dealt the issue in detail and concluded that both for the raw material as well as for the pressing machine there is no contemporaneous imports as moulds are tailor made. The respondents contention is that the department has raised t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ption to contest only on said ground. The Revenue cannot raise new grounds before the Tribunal which was not before the adjudicating authority or LAA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Warner Hindustan Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad 1999 (113) ELT 24 (S.C.), wherein the Apex Court had set aside the order of the Tribunal and Tribunal has to consider the additional grounds made by the Revenue. Para 2 & 3 of the said decision is reproduced as under:- "2. The appellant manufactures what it calls "Halls Ice Mint tablets". It classified these tablets as "Ayurvedic medicines" under Heading 3003.30 of the Central Excise Tariff. It was issued a notice to show cause why these tablets should not be classified under Tariff Heading 3003.19 as "p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to have followed was to have dismissed the appeal of the Excise authorities making it clear that it was open to the Excise authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice to the appellant on the basis that the tablets were classifiable under Heading 17.04 as items of confectionery. This would have given the appellant the opportunity to place on record such material as was available to it to establish the contrary. It is impermissible for the Tribunal to consider a case that is laid for the first time in appeal because the stage for setting out the factual matrix is before the authorities below. 3. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal under appeal is set aside and the appeal filed by the Excise autho....