TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : R.K. Singh, Member (T)]. - Appeal has been filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 15 & 16/Cus/App/DLH-IV/2009, dated 11-8-2009 which upheld the order-in-original dated 6-3-2009 except that the redemption fine and personal penalty were reduced from Rs. 8,40,360/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 1.5 lakhs respectively. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Engineer in his certificate dated 27-1-2009 appeared to be fair and having thus observed the primary adjudicating authority adopted the value for the purpose of assessment. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the basis of valuation was acceptable and therefore, rejected Revenue's appeal regarding valuation. In its appeal before the CESTAT, Revenue has only questioned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly when the basis of valuation is not arbitrary or unreasonable. In the absence of the Chartered Engineer's certificate in the prescribed format, valuation was made on the basis of material available. As regards the contention that no opportunity of hearing was given to Revenue by the Commissioner (Appeals) the same is not sustainable because the principles of natural justice were given a go-by by....