w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Carlisle Trading & Manufacturing, (India) Pvt.Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai

    Appeal No. C/S/40684 of 2014 & C/40484 of 2014 [Arising Out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.No.294 of 2014 dt. 21.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]

    Decided On, 13 August 2014

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. P.K. DAS
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. P0ERIASAMI
    By, TECHNICAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Indira Sisupal, AC (AR).



Judgment Text

P.K. Das, J.

1. The issue involved lies in a narrow compass and therefore, after disposing the stay application, we take up the appeal for hearing.

2. The appellants are engaged in the trading of goods imported from M/s.Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction, USA and group companies in UK, China & Japan. The Special Valuation Branch (SVB) noticed that appellant is related to the foreign supplier. Hence, SVB had given standard questionnaire as per the practice. The appellant had given a reply to the questionnaire vide their letter dt. 25.8.2011 to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SVB). The appellant also represented their case during the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority enhanced the declared value by loading the same @ 15.122% on the declared value with usual additions of freight and insurance. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.

3. The main contention of the learned advocate is that both the authorities below failed to consider various evidences such as Chartered Accountant certificate, copies of Bills of Entry of the appellant and unrelated third party, agreements with the same supplier etc. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that they have not given these documents. Appellants filed MISC application before this Tribunal enclosing the said documents. It is contended that these documents were placed before the adjudicating authority.

4. After considering the submissions of both sides, in our considered view, it is appropriate that the adjudicating authority should examine these evidences for finalization of assessment. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. Matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after considering the evidences in accordance with law. At this stage, Ld. AR submitted that along with the questionnaire, Bills of Entry were submitted by the appellant and comparative chart was given by them. We direct the adjudicating authority to consider all these documents. Needless

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

to say that the adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before decision. MISC application for filing of additional evidence is disposed of. Stay application is disposed of. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
O R