TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair The appellant imported parts for manufacture of cooker hoods from their foreign collaborator M/s. Faber SPA, Italy. The value was examined by the Gatt Valuation Cell. The appellant was asked by the adjudicating authority to submit the reply to the questionnaire delivered on 26-5-2000 by the Gatt Valuation Cell. The appellant submitted docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs Valuation Rules, 1998 and accordingly transaction value declared in the invoices was accepted. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No. S/9-226 GATT/98 SVB dated 7-7-2000, Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who allowed the appeal of the Revenue. However made an observation that records have not been properly examined by the Lower authority and also held that Order of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue which is contrary to his observations. 3. Shri. M.K. Sarangi, Ld. Joint Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that original authority has not examined the documents therefore the Revenue's appeal was allowed by the Commissioner(Appeals) which is in order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le or not. In such case, the order of the lower authority needs to be set aside and the Appeals filled by the Deptt. Is allowed. From the above order, it can be seen that Revenue's appeal was allowed only on the ground that the Adjudicating authority passed the order without examination of the relevant documents whereas the Commissioner(Appeals) has not gone into facts and legal issues of the mat....