Mathew John ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the enhancement of value done on the assessed Bill of Entry, Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Amrish Jain, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has held that the assessing authority has not indicated any reasons for rejection of the transaction value or for enhancement of the value. As such by relying upon various precedent decisions, he has held that enhancement was not justified. He has also observed that merely because the importer cleared the goods at the enhanced value due to urgency, cannot be made a reason for precluding them from final appeal. For the above proposition he has relied upon the Tribunal's decisions in the case of M/s. S&H Gears Pvt. Ltd. reported in MANU/CM/0220/2004 : 2004 (64) RLT 425 (Tribunal) : 2004 (167) E.L.T. 538 (Tribunal), Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd. reported in MANU/CE/0026/2004 : 2004 (165) E.L.T. 175 (Tribunal) and in the case of Bayshore Glass Trading Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1243 (Tribunal).
2. The Revenue in their memo of appeal is only aggrieved with the fact that the importer had paid the duty without protest and had cleared the goods voluntarily and as such they have accepted the value enhancement. We find no merits in the above contention of the Revenue. The assessed Bill of Entry having been appealed against by the importer is itself indicative of the fact that the enhanced value does not stand accepted by them. The importers cannot be precluded from challenging the assessed Bill of Entry on the sole ground that they have cleared the goods on the enhanced value, as rightly held by Commissioner (Appeals). We find no infirmity in the impugned order of the appellate authority. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Pronounced in Court)
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.