TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clared 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. CMC Ltd., Mumbai saying that discount is in the range of 87% to 97.35% and he allowed maximum discount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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. * It was a quotation of M/s. Hewlett Packard Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd. (HPI), which was accepted by M/s. ITC, who are their customers for the present goods. * In te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 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) Jyothy Laboratories Ltd vs. CCE reported in 2007 (78) RLT 276 (Cestat-Bang.) 3B. BASIS FOR DOUBTING THE TRANSACTION VALUE HAS BEEN DULY REBUTTED * The respondents have produced back to back....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble 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 in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) 3D. HIGHER RATE OF DISCOUNTS ALLOWED IN NORMAL COURSE OF TRADE IN THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET * The Respondent undertook supplies in INR to the Central Board of Excise and Customs where discounts of about 91% were allowed on HP price list.These discounted prices were accepted by the department when the goods were s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ASED 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 transaction value as long as it satisfies the requirements of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules. * It is quite common in international trade to negotiate package or bundled prices for a set of goods, even though such a bundled price may consist of goods requiring classification under different headings. 4. All the facts on record and the submissions of both the sides have been ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Revenue has not been able to establish that import goods attract exception noted in Rule (2) of Valuation Rules. 5.2. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in case of South India Television Pvt. Ltd. (supra) supports the stand of Respondents the Revenue cannot reject the transaction value unless it is able to demonstrate that contemporaneous imports were made at a higher price than the price declared in import documen....