Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1997 (7) TMI 160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the appeal of the appellant with a slight modification in favour of the appellant. 2.The facts of the case are as follows :- 3.The appellant returned to India in 1984 from Dubai on transfer of residence availing benefits of the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978. While coming back from Dubai, she brought along with her, one used Volvo Car 244 GLE Model 1982 which was under her use in Dubai. This car had been purchased by the appellant's husband on 10-3-1982 under invoice No. 216/10-3-1982 from one Mohd. Abdul Rahman AC Bahar, Sharjah for 38,000 Dirhanis (UAE) which included 10% dealer's commission and sea-freight charges from Sweden to Dubai, apart from duty, clearance, transport and bank charges at the rate of 7%. Appellant filed a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n given in the show-cause notice as to how the basis of alleged short levy was arrived at. 5.After 2 years and 3 months, the appellant received an order dated 21-8-1997 from the Assistant Collector of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Bangalore. In that order, it was mentioned that a comparison was made with a "price list" and accordingly, the assessable value was reworked at Rs. 96,850/- as against the proposed assessable value of Rs. 1,21,603/- mentioned in the show cause notice. The order stated that the additional duty payable was Rs. 89,715.51 rather than Rs. 1,40,163.75 proposed in the show cause notice. Appeal was preferred before the Collector (Appeals), Madras contending, inter alia, that there was no reason to reject Volvo's let....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sistant Collector or in the order of the Collector, was supplied to the petitioner. The magazine was not referred to in the show cause notice. A reading of the order of the CEGAT shows that an extract of the price-list of the magazine was placed before the CEGAT. Though an extract from the magazine was placed before the CEGAT for the first time, the CEGAT accepted the use thereof by the Customs authorities in their orders. So far as the certificate regarding price issued by the manufacturer submitted by the petitioner was concerned, the CEGAT ignored the same as it was issued 4 years after the actual purchase of the car by the importer. 9.In our view, once it is admitted that the price mentioned in the magazine was not mentioned in the s....