2019 (11) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2018 by which the order of the Adjudicating Authority has been set aside and has been remanded back for fresh decision. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order the Appellants, M/s CMR Nikkei India Pvt Ltd. and M/s Century Metal Recycling Ltd., filed these appeals on the following grounds; • That the assessment order have been passed in complete defiance of the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Valuation(Determination of Value of Imported Goods Rules, 2011) • That as per Section 2(41) of the Customs Act, "value" in relation to any goods means the value thereof determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) of Section 14 further as per Section 14 of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to appreciate that. Reliance was placed by the Department in case of Atlas Casting and Metals Impregnation [2005(186) ELT 757] cannot be relied upon considering facts and circumstances of the import of consignment. " • That the Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules cannot be invoked placing sole reliance on London Metal exchange price placing reliance on Impex Steel & Bearing Co. vs. CC [2014 (302) ELT 464]. The transaction value can be rejected only subject to Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 which has not been followed by the primary adjudicating authority. Reliance place on National Import data Bank (NIDB) data is also not relevant for the determination of price of the su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of Customs, Jamnagar-2003(156) ELT 977(Tri.), Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-[2004(173) ELT 518(Tri.)] • That the reliance placed by Commissioner in case of Jai Shiv Trading Co. and M/s Advance Scan Support Technology vs. CCE, Jodhpur are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of present case. 3. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant reiterated the grounds in the appeal memorandum and also place reliance on the various decisions passed by this Tribunal and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise and ST, Noida vs. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Ltd. which sustained the order of Hon'ble CESTAT in case of Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Ltd. These....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n value arrived by the Department under the provisions of Customs Act and Valuation Rules. 5. We have examined the impugned order and also considered the submissions made by the ld. Advocate on behalf of the Appellant and ld. AR on behalf of the Department. 6. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding determination of assessable value of imported aluminium waste and scrap. The Assessing Officer has rejected the declared price, on the basis of Circular issued by Directorate General Valuation being Circular No. 14/2005 dated 16/12/2005. The appellant had imported various consignments of aluminium waste and scrap such as Twitch, Tread, Trump, Taint/Tabor, Talk, Tale etc., falling under Customs Tariff item 760220010 of the Custom Tar....