TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted on the strength of contemporary imports of the said goods which was around Rs. 148/- per Kg. The value was revised to Rs. 148/- per Kg as per NDDB data. 3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that there was no ground for rejection of the declared value. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE & ST, Noida vs. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Limited - (2019) 2 SCC 378 wherein the following has been observed:- "14. In Commissioner of Customs vs. Prabhu Dayal Prem Chand, this Court was confronted with almost same kind of fact situation. On the basis of the information received subsequently from the London Metal Exchange (for short "LME") to the effect that the price of the two metals viz, bra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s imports or any other material indicating the price notified by LME had either been referred to by the adjudicating officer in the adjudication order or such material was placed before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal. The learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to controvert the said observations by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter no fault can be found with the order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the additional demand created against the assessee." 4. He pointed out that order-in-original while holding that the contemporary imports are at Rs. 148/- per Kg. and there is no bill of entry or import details against the said claim of Rs. 148 per Kg. In these circumstances, rejection of declared val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue under Section 28 of Customs Act is upheld." He argued that the said decision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported at 2003 (151) ELT A-309. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC, Mumbai vs. Multimetals Limited - 2002 (144) ELT 574 (Tri. Mum.), wherein in Para 4, the following has been observed:- "4. As we have noted, the importer had waived issue of written notice. The proportion that was placed before the Collector for adjudication is contained in a note dated 17-12-1993 of the appraising officer of the Central Intelligence Unit of the Custom House, countersigned by the Assistant Collector and Additional Collector. This note clearly proposed "adjudication on above grounds of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee, that they were not confronted with any contemporaneous material relied upon by the Revenue for enhancing the price declared by them in the bills of entry. It also noted the following remarks of the Tribunal: (Prabhu Dayal Prem Chand case, SCC OnLine CEGAT para 3) "3. ... In the present case as mentioned above, even though there is a reference to contemporaneous import in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner no material regarding such import has been placed before us or made available by the appellant at any point of time. Therefore, assessment in this case has to be taken as having been made purely on the basis of LME Bulletin without any corroborative evidence of imports at or near that price which is not....