TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....go Complex, Bangalore, as per the prices declared in the bill of entry which is as given in the table below. Description Qty. Unit price in US $ Total value in INR as declared in B/E Invoice No. Pre Processor Core Licences 48 set 3191.75 78,74,920 16-01331-11 HP Integrity BL860C 2p/4C 1.6/18 MB Proc 8 set 20085.75 82,59,506 16-01332-11 HP Integrity BL860C 2P/4C 1.6/18 MB Proc 8 set 13609.75 55,96,495 16-01333-11 HP SY Support Plus 24 SVC 1 set 38036.99 19,55,159 16-01334-11 Veritas Volume Manager LTU for Servers 12 set 20477.39 1,26,30,830 16-01335-11 1.2. Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the value declared by the import viz., M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w higher discount, but it needs to be carefully examined in case to case basis. Abnormal or special discounts are covered under the exempted category of the Transaction Value Rule in the Customs Valuation Rules (CVR), 2007. 97.35% discount cannot be considered as normal discount. (v) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) order is not fair and legally correct. 3. Respondent viz., M/s. CMC Ltd., Mumbai, has been represented by the learned advocate Ms. Neetu James, have mainly argued as follows: 3A. IDENTICAL IMPORTS WERE ASSESSED ADOPTING THE DECLARED VALUE AND CLASSIFYING THE GOODS UNDER 8471 • The declared price is an agreed consolidated price commonly known as bundled price. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same purchase order and meant forthe same customer, when imported through Bangalore. In this regard, they placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) CCE vs. Bal Pharma Ltd. reported in 2010 (259) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.) (b) CCE, Allahabad Vs. Surcoat Paints (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) (c) CCE, Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chem. Ltd. reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) (d) Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2005 (186) ELT 266 (SC) (e) Jayaswals Neco Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur reported in 2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.) (f) &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - 2001 (173) ELT 570 iv. [Affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court - 2003 (156) ELT A385 (SC)] v. Polychem Ltd Vs. CC - 2001 (135) ELT 1061 • The Respondents submit that as the exceptions enumerated in Rule 3(2) are absent in the instant case, the transaction value of the goods are not liable to rejected. • Further the department has not demonstrated that contemporaneous imports were made at a higher price than that declared in the impugned invoices. They placed reliance on the following decisions: i. CC Vs. South India Television Pvt. Ltd reported in 2007 (214) ELT 3 (SC) ii. Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI reported in 2009-TIOL-16-SC- iii. CC Vs. JD Orgochem Ltd. reported i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fied along with the machine itself. • Note 5(c) to Chapter 84 of the customs tariff specifies that separately presented units of automatic data processing machines are to be classified in heading 8471. In the instant case, Cell Boards qualifies to be called as units for the purpose of said note and therefore should be classified under CTH 8471. 3F. BUNDLED PRICES TO BE ASSESSED BASED ON THE TRANSACTION VALUE • The entire transaction has been treated as a bundled or package deal where consolidated and single price has been approved upon for the goods covered by the impugned bill of entry though covered by five separate invoices. Such bundled prices have to be assessed based on the transactio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Deputy Commissioner and hold that the assessment be done as per the declared value in line with the assessments done in Kolkata Customs House." 5. We find that there has not been sufficient evidence with the Department to challenge the declaration made by the respondents in their import documents where-under they were clearing their subject goods. There is no cogent and reasonable basis available with the department to have a different view on the assessment than the assessment done for the identical goods by Kolkata Customs House. 5.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in case of Eicher Tractors Vs. CC (supra) that the transaction value cannot be rejected unless the imports attract any of the exceptions noted in Rule (2) of Custom....