M/s. Namrata Enterprises vs CC, Jodhpur

Shri Agrawal, ld. Chartered Accountant submits that there is an incongruity in the operative portion of the Appellate order. Ld. Commissioner

(Appeals) in para-10 of the order specifically set aside that part of the adjudication order which deals with the enhancement of value of the used

Tyres and Used Tyres with Metallic Frames. He allowed the relief on that count. In para-12, he dealt about the quantity aspect of Tyres imported

with or without Metallic Frames. He considered that there was no gravity on the issue for confiscation and seizure. Therefore, he reduced redemption

fine and penalty. While ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed relief on these two aspects as above, in para-13 of his order, he limited declaration of

relief as per para-12 only.

Learned DR supports the order passed by Adjudicating Authority.

Considering the difficulties expressed above, it would be proper to modify para-13 of the appeal order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to be

read as appeal allowed in terms of para-10 and 12 of the order of Commissioner (Appeals).

Shri Agrawal further submits that when there was allegation made by Revenue, burden of proof lies on the Revenue to satisfy that value of the

contemporaneous imports was higher than the value declared by appellant calling for enhancement. But there was no evidence adduced by the

Department to support such allegation. Accordingly no undervaluation can be alleged.

Shri Agrawal, ld. CA submits that the resultant exercise, on valuation aspect shall not yield significant duty or revenue. When the department failed

to support its allegation bringing contemporaneous import evidence, Revenue’s contention is liable to the rejected.

Contentions of Shri Agrawal on the issue of undervaluation arising as above was examined. His averments are found to be correct when Revenue

failed to discharge burden of proof, there cannot be a case of undervaluation against appellant even though learned DR supports orders of the

Adjudicating Authority below.

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.