TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1813
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l filed during or about April, 2014) were finally assessed at higher value than the declared value. Out of 13 bills of entries, the respondent had made endorsement of acceptance in hand for enhanced values of the 7 bills of entries, being bills of entries having written endorsement of acceptance of enhanced values. Further, the Assessing Authority did not allow the benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2014, which provides exemption from payment of CVD, subject to condition. 2. Being aggrieved, the respondent-importer preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in the present case, the issues for discussion and determination were as follows:- (i) Whether the assessing authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore this Tribunal on the ground, among others, that the respondent had given their consent with respect to enhancement of the assessable value, in respect of the several bills of entries and the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that still the respondent-importer can challenge the enhancement in appeal. It is provided in Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 that "importer may accept the assessment made by the Customs Officer by communicating his consent in writing, otherwise the Customs Officer will be obliged to pass a speaking order". 7. Further, reliance is placed on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Madras Vs. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. - 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC), wherein it has been held that - "it is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e goods and that they reserved their right to challenge the same subsequently. They settled their duty liability once for all and paid the duty amount on the loaded value of the goods." 9. Ld. Authorised Representative further urges that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the respondent-importer by setting aside the re-assessment of the impugned goods and restoring the assessment at declared value in respect of the aforementioned 7 bills of entries. 10. Opposing the appeal, ld. Advocate, Shri Prem Ranjan for the respondent-importer submits that the issue is no longer res integra under similar facts as per the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rainbow Fashion being Final Order No.50658-50659 of 20....