TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2002. 2. Before we proceed further, the brief facts are explained as under: (a) The Tug "Jyotsna" was converted from a foreign going vessel into a vessel for coastal - run by filing of bill of entry on payment of duty on 5th Feb. 2001 after discharging payment of duty applicable on the ship stores i.e. fuel oil, lubricants etc. Thereafter, the vessel continued to ply at Mundra Port. On 27th April, 2001, the appellant entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for the purchase of the vessel from the owner and transaction value was fixed at US $ 1.56 million on the basis of value approved by the Bank and on the basis of permission granted by the RBI. After obtaining the requisite approvals from the various authorities, sake was concluded o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of filing bill of entry. They had got revalued the ship and according to revaluation, international price as on 28th November 2002 was found to be US $ 1.2 million and accordingly, duty should have been charged on that basis. Learned Advocate contended that transaction value is not relevant for assessment under Section 14 of the Customs Act and what is relevant on the value under Section 14 is actually deemed value and not the transaction value. The value has to be taken as on the date of filing bill of entry and not on the basis of sale deed especially in view of the fact that sale has taken place more than a year back in this case. It is his contention that relevant date cannot be different for the purpose of charging duty and for the pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of assessable value in absence of price variation clause in Memorandum of Agreement to support his contention that methodology followed by the appellants by getting the tug revalued at the time of assessment on the ground that original transaction price is not relevant, is not correct. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that nowhere in the record it has been brought out either by the Department or by the appellant as to what happened to the bill of entry which was filed on 25th July, 2001. While there is a indication that appellants have paid penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 48/117 of Customs Act, 1962, there is no order in original passed requiring the appellants to pay the same or there is no indication as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bill of entry in the record submitted by them. Even before the Commissioner (Appeals) this issue was not considered and the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone ahead on the basis that there were only two bills of entry filed by them and the tug was not cleared for home consumption or for domestic use on payment of duty in July, 2001 and the bill of entry was filed for the first time in November 2002 for clearing the ship. Even though transaction has taken place, the delay in filing bills of entry has occurred on the part of the appellant and they cannot take advantage of their claim that reduction in value has occurred as a consequence when the tug was under the control of the appellants and in use by themselves. Once the transaction value is ....