TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and adjudicated within 4 weeks of the reply by the Appellants. Accordingly, the Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2007 was issued. It was confirmed by Order in Original dated 05-06-2007, wherein the imported goods were revalued and duty of Rs. 27,69,401 was confirmed alongwith penalty of Rs. 25,00,000 and redemption fine of Rs. 30,00,000, on the basis of the market survey conducted by the department, was passed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that there was no mis-declaration in respect of the imported goods. The Adjudication order confirmed the duty on the basis of market survey in respect of Stop Leak (Brand Abro), Putty (Brand Abro) and Shellac (Brand Versachen); the value of Stop Leak (Brand Morse) was arrived on the basis of export value of a local manufacturer and the value of G.P. Paste (Brand Chemico) was arrived at on the basis of Proforma Invoice issued to M/s. Ashu Automarts by the foreign supplier. He submits that the market inquiry were conducted behind the back of the Appellant; export price should not be relied upon for valuing a import consignment and that no Bill of Entry details were provided to actually show that goods have been imported by M/s. As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtain documents or statements cross examination of the same should be given. 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the Department has reiterated findings of OIO and submitted written brief highlighting the reasons for fixing a particular value for each of the impugned goods. He relied upon the following cases: (i). MYTRI Enterprises 2004 (174) E.L.T. 389 (Tri. Mumbai) (ii). Sanjay Chandiram 1995(77) ELT 241 (SC) (iii). Universal Synthetics 2000(117) ELT 534 (SC) (iv). Prashant Glass Works 1996 (87) ELT 518 (Tri) (v). Prashant Glass Works 1997 (89) ELT A179 (SC) (vi). Agfa Gevaert India Ltd 1985 (21)ELT 510 (Tri) (vii). Multimetal Ltd 2002 (144) ELT 574 (Tri-Mum) (viii). Pan Asia Enterprises 1995 (79) ELT 322(Tri) 5. We find that Learned Commissioner has found that the value of 5 of the 7 items imported was mis-declared and required redetermination. Learned Commissioner has relied upon the market enquiry in respect of 3 items; in respect of 1 item he relied upon the export price of a product manufactured in India and in one case he relied upon a Proforma Invoice given by the foreign supplier to M/s. Ash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty while considering the valuation done by the assessing authority has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court and the Tribunal in similar circumstances and has come to the conclusion that the loading of value done by assessing authority is without any basis. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. 7. We also find that the Appellants contended that the Learned Commissioner has not discharged the burden of proof of valuation. We find that Commissioner has brushed aside the contemporaneous value of some items provided by the Appellants. The Commissioner's contention was that such goods were seized and were subjected to adjudication and therefore he was not considering those values. We find that the Learned Commissioner has not analysed the values therein taken in such adjudication of identical / similar goods. We find that for that reasons also the adjudication order suffers from infirmity. The Commissioner, having rejected the transaction value, ought to have proceeded sequentially through the Rules 5, 6 and 7 etc, before resorting to Rule 7A. We also find that no such reasoning has been given as to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imports and as to why she was resorting to Rule 7A of CVR. We find that Tribunal in the case of Golden Agro Corporation Vs CC, Jaipur-I 2017 (354) E.L.T. 655 (Tri. - Del.) observed that In the case of these goods, the revenue again enhanced the value based on market enquiry. The Revenue further contends that market enquiry was made in the presence of Shri Deepak Agarwal, the proprietor of the importer firm. However, the presence of Shri Deepak Agarwal, the proprietor, cannot make difference to the fact that there is no systematic data of market enquiry available and further market enquiry alone cannot become the basis of enhancement of the value unless the results of the market enquiry are corroborated by independent evidences which could be contemporary imports or manufacturer's price list, which again needs support by the specific written declaration from manufacturer. Further, when it is a case of enhancement of value, Revenue needs to make an investigation on the differential payments made by the importer to the supplier from where the goods are received. The impugned order also discards the details of bill of entry dated 20-7-2011 produced by the importer indicating ....