TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 1107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeals are related and identical in nature. Hence, after disposing the miscellaneous application, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had imported a consignment of spandex yarn in 20/40/70 deniers declaring invoice price as US $ 12/kg, 6.4/kg, 6.5/kg respectively. The appellants had filed Bill of Entry dated 2-2-2005 at the declared invoice price. But during the assessment, the value was enhanced to 15/8/7.2 US $ for 20/40/70 deniers respectively. The appellants had cleared the goods at the enhanced value paying an additional amount of Rs. 1,85,827/- (One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Seven) by TR-6 Challan No. 10029931, dated 9-2-2005. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documents as required by the learned officer with a letter dated 22-12-2005 for sanctioning refund. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner had issued a show cause notice dated 4-1-2007 proposing to reject the refund claim for not furnishing information required or for sanctioning the refund on provisions of unjust enrichment as per Section 27(2) of Customs Act, 1962. The appellants had filed objections to the proposal along with documentary evidence. But, the Assistant Commissioner vide his OIO No. 09/2007, dated 21-1-2008 was pleased to conclude the matter by sanctioning the refund claim and transferring the same to Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved by the Order, the appellants had filed an appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....50/2005, dated 27-7-2005. The appellant assessee resubmitted the refund claim along with the documents as directed. He also submitted that they imported spandex yarn, which are the inputs for manufacturing of final products and the entire purchase of spandex yarn were utilized by the appellants in the manufacture of final products. He further submitted that since the entire purchases were utilized by the appellants in the manufacture of fabrics, there is no sale invoices. Further, from the sale invoices issued by the appellants for their final products, the additional duty paid to the department has not be realised from the buyers. Therefore, this amount is liable to be refunded to the appellant assessee. He also submitted that the refund c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, provides that "where the value of imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of any of the preceding Rules, the value shall be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these Rules and sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on the basis of data available in India". In the instant case, there is wide variation between the declared price and recorded price for which the importer had not attributed any valid reasons. Under this situation, the valuation of imported goods is to be made on the basis of data available in India, and the same was resorted to by the lower authority. Thus the revision of value under Rule 8 is in order. He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. As regards the Revenue's appeal against OIA dated 30-9-2005, on perusal of the adjudication order and the order-in-appeal and the grounds of appeal, the original authority has rejected the declared value purely on the grounds that the importer did not produce any evidence. Whereas, on perusal of the "Order-in-Appeal" dated 30-9-2005, we find that the Appellate Authority has discussed the issue in detail and after examining the documents and L.C, concluded that the declared price is correct and is to be taken as the transaction value and also clearly brought out that the same importer's similar consignment has been accepted by the department and also compared with the quantity of the yarn imported in....