2015 (12) TMI 857

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioner Shri. J.S. Sanghvi, Consultant : For the Respondent ORDER Per : P.S. Pruthi This case has already gone through two round of litigation at the lower level. In the first round the Commissioner(Appeals) remanded the case to the adjudicating authority with specific observations that lower authority has not declared the source of market inquiry to the appellant resulting in violation of p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iler and the mark up of 25% at the level of wholesaler/importer, revenue worked out assessable value of Rs. 560/- per piece of spectacle frame instead of price declared for the individual parts which sum up to Rs. 2162/-. It is also the allegation of the Revenue that the importer not being actual user was not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 149/95 for payment of CVD. Adjudicating auth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner(Appeals) in the first stage, we find that principles of natural justice still remained violated. In the impugned order, the Commissioner(Appeals) has clearly recorded that the Department is duty bound to convey to the respondent the name of the market, name of the address of the person from whom market inquiry was made, name of the product including brand name for which inquiry were ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue cannot be accepted in terms of Rule 4, when the invoices gave complete description of the parts. It has not been established as to how the assembly of this parts into complete spectacles frame will not result in higher value at the retail level. Revenue has not also explained why Rule 5 and 6 which relate to similar or identical goods should not have been considered when the appellant have give....