TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... situated overseas, by availing benefit under Customs Notification no.52/2003 without payment of duty. Upon examination of the values of imports, the department issued an Order-in-Original No. 16526 dated 04.07.2011 holding that the declared transaction value of imports was accepted in terms of Rule 3(3)(a) of CVR. Aggrieved, the department filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) citing that the value discussed by the authority in the impugned order was much lower than the contemporary price reflected in NIDB data of Diethylaminosulfer Trifluoride and vide order in C.Cus.No. 67/2014 dated 23.01.2014, the appellate authority set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original authority for fresh consideration. 1.3 The Appellant herein, assailing the said order, appealed before Hon'ble CESTAT, which vide order No. 40520 dated 11.08.2014 remanded the case back to the lower appellate authority for denovo proceedings directing therein to follow the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, vide Order-in-Appeal No. 372/2014 dated 24.12.2014, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original dated 04.07.2011 after rejecting the declared transaction value....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch arises for decision in this appeal is whether the Revenue is justified in re-valuing the imported goods by adopting contemporary value of imports as per NIDB data after rejecting the declared values? 7. We find that there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the Appellant and supplier abroad. We find that the Appellant is a 100% EOU rendering research activities for Customers abroad and for this purpose are sourcing raw materials / equipment through imports from related supplier abroad and also from the domestic market. We also find that the Appellant is a R & D centre as an EOU and not a manufacturer. All import goods are cleared under EOU scheme by claiming benefit under Customs Notification No. 52/2003 without payment of Customs duty. Since the imports are exempt from payment of Customs duty there appears to be no implication for the revenue by enhancement of value of the imported goods. 8. The main contention of the Appellant is that the impugned order had not adopted the computed value as per Rule 8 of CVR and that the contemporary value of glass tubes through an unrelated supplier was ignored. The department on the other hand insisted on the adoption of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions and has held that adoption of NIDB Data, without any other evidence on record to establish the transaction value as incorrect, is not proper and justified. For the above proposition, the Ld. Advocate has drawn our attention to various decisions of the Tribunal which have been reproduced below for convenience: - (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV Vs. Anushka Overseas [2011 (274) ELT 546]: - "5.------ Further, the reliance on the NIDB data by the original adjudicating authority cannot be held to be in accordance with declaration of law and the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Gaitri Export refers (supra) would be fully applicable to the facts of the case. Furthermore, we also find that there is no allegation, much less any allegation to the effect that any additional payments were made by the respondent to their foreign supplier. In the absence of the same and in view of our foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), in respect of the valuation aspect. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly applied the precedent decisions to the facts of the case and has rightly rejected the Revenue's stand on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the Chennai Bench, in the case of M/s. Almaa Traders v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai [Final Order No. 40898 of 2023 dated 11.10.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 40935 of 2014 - CESTAT, Chennai], wherein it was held as under: - "7.3 Moreover, the officer has relied on alleged contemporaneous imports which were never put across to the appellant for rebuttal, but however, that such reliance on the contemporaneous imports itself has been doubted by the adjudicating authority when he holds that the value of the imported goods could not be determined under Rule 4 and Rule 5 due to variable factors like numerable types of descriptions, grades, country of origin, etc.; Rules 7 and 8 also could not be applied for want of quantifiable data at the place of exportation and importation respectively. By this, the approach of the assessing officer in comparing the import value with that of the contemporaneous imports stood diluted. In other words, on the one hand the officer says that the value of contemporaneous imports were higher, but on the other hand he refers to various factors like numerable types of descriptions, grades, country of origin, place of exportation and import....