Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 1237
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRADING PVT. LTD. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 18300-18305 OF 2017
Decided On : 10-12-2018
IMPORTANT POINT
Price actually paid is the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty. Assessing officer may differ by giving cogent reasons.
Headnote:Customs Act, 1962 – Section 14 – Value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty – Price actually paid – Assessing officer may differ by giving cogent reasons. (Para 10, 13)
(2001) 1 SCC 315; (2007) 6 SCC 373; (2010) 10 SCC 576; (2012) 1 SCC 186; (2010) 13 SCC 535 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The respondent had imported various varieties of the said Aluminum scrap during the period 27th August, 2013 to 29th December, 2014 and filed 843 Bills of Entry along with invoices and purchase orders in respect therein declaring the transaction value of the imported goods for the purpose of paying custom duty. The declared value was not accepted by the Assessing Officer who found the same to be low. Accordingly, the said declared value was rejected and reassessment was done by increasing the assessable value.
On the directions of the High Court the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, NOIDA passed a speaking order rejecting the transaction value as declared by the respondent and enhancing the same by taking into consideration the value of imported goods, namely, grades of scrap Aluminum contents therein as well as quantum of presence of other metals.
The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, NOIDA dismissed all appeals.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals of the respondent.
Finding ofmthe Court:
Price actually paid is the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty. Assessing officer may differ by giving cogent reasons.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, J.
The issue raised in these appeals pertains to the transaction value/assessable value in respect of imported Aluminum Scrap, which was imported by the respondent herein. The respondent had imported various varieties of the said Aluminum scrap during the period 27th August, 2013 to 29th December, 2014 and filed 843 Bills of Entry along with invoices and purchase orders in respect therein declaring the transaction value of the imported goods for the purpose of paying custom duty. The declared value was not accepted by the Assessing Officer who found the same to be low. Accordingly, the said declared value was rejected and reassessment was done by increasing the assessable value.
2) In a writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court of Allahabad, on the directions of the High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, NOIDA passed a speaking order dated 25th March, 2015, giving his reasons to reject the transaction value as declared by the respondent and enhancing the same by taking into consideration the value of imported goods, namely, grades of scrap Aluminum contents therein as well as quantum of presence of other metals.
3) The assessment order dated 25th March, 2015 passed by the Assessing Officer was challenged by filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, NOIDA. All these appeals were dismissed. Challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”). By the impugned common judgment dated 17th January, 2017, the appeals of the respondent were allowed thereby rejecting the enhancement of assessable value by the Revenue. It is the said order of the Tribunal, which is the subject matter of these appeals.
4) The entire basis of the order of the Tribunal is contained in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment and since that paragraph contains the reasons which persuaded the Tribunal to set aside the order of the authorities below, we reproduce this para along with paragraph 8 which disclosed the outcome of the appeals, in entirety.
"7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, we find that the Original Authority was directed by the Hon’ble High Court to pass speaking order on the enhancement of assessable value. We find that the Original Authority in its Order-in-Original dated 25/03/2015 passed comments on the ground of writ petition and did not properly examine the evidence available with the department required to be examined for enhancement of assessable value. Further, we find that as held in the case laws stated above and as provided by Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, the assessable value has to be arrived at on the basis of the price which is actually paid and in a case the price is not sole consideration or if the buyers and sellers are related persons then after establishing that the price is not sole consideration the transaction value can be rejected and taking the other evidences into consideration the assessable value can be arrived at. Such exercise has not been done in these cases on hand. Therefore, we reject the enhancement of assessable value in respect of the Bills of Entry which are involved in all the appeals being decided and we restore the assessable value as declared by the appellant in said Bills of Entry.
8. In result, we set aside all the impugned Orders-in-Appeal and allow all the appeals. The appellant shall be entitled for consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
5) The precise submission of Mr. K. Radhakrishna, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue was that as per the Tribunal itself, the reasons for upsetting the order in original are:
(a) That he did not properly examine the evidences available with the Department, which were required to be examined for the purpose of enhancement of assessable value.
(b) As per the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs
