2024 (7) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....through the impugned order, we find that the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not, ex-facie, illegal or without jurisdiction. The Revenue's Stay Petition being filed in a routine and mechanical manner and devoid of merit, is rejected. 3. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass and is also covered by the earlier decision of this Bench, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue. 4. Heard the ld.A.R. for the Revenue and perused the records. 5. After going through the impugned order, we find that on similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata vide Final Order No.77598/2023 dated 31.10.2023, has held as under : "....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder and the same is hereby upheld along with reasons mentioned therein. 21. I also observe that the lower authority stated at Para 5 that as per NIDB data 1341 cases of similar goods were assessed at higher value during the period from July, 2016 to September 2017. However, the data for all those cases were not supplied to the appellant. Instead, data of only 88 cases were supplied to the appellant. Hence it is evident that the lower authority has adopted a pick and choose approach in the present case which is not the right way to adjudication. The Principal Bench of CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s Margra Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nodia reported in 2007 (216) ELT 710 (Tri Del) has held as, "........................

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecially when there is nothing on record to suggest that the transaction value declared by the appellant was not the price actually paid for the good when sold for export to India. Also no evidence has been produced by the respondent that any amount, over and above the invoice values was paid by the appellant to the supplier of the goods. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the buyer and seller of the goods were related or price was not for the sole consideration for sale. Therefore, in these circumstances, the enhancement of assessable value is liable to be struck down and set aside and the bills of entry in the impugned appeal are to be assessed at value declared by the appellant. 23. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold ....