COMMISSIONER V. GUNVANTRAI & CO. 2003 (155) E.L.T. A72 (S.C.)

 

Remand — Valuation (Customs) — (1) Commissioner’s directions in remand order, which form part of ratio, are binding on Asstt. Commissioner Valuation (Customs) — Secondary goods — (2) When no contemporaneous imports available, value to be determined by making deductions from value of prime goods

 

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ruma Pal on 7-2-2000 after condoning the delay dismissed the Civil Appeal No. D 19204 of 1999 filed by Commissioner of Customs, Maharashtra against the CEGAT Order No. 1257/99-WZB/C-I, dated 4-6-1999 and reported in 2002 (148) E.L.T. 522 (Tri. - Mumbai) (Gunvantrai & Co. v. Commissioner). While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court passed the following order :-

 

“Delay condoned.

Having regard to the facts of this case, no interference is called for.

The appeal is dismissed.”

 

The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that Commissioner in his remand order when directed that mere failure to produce manufacturer’s invoice not sufficient for accepting not transaction value, it formed part of the ratio and was binding on the Asstt. Commissioner and as his directions were not followed by Asstt. Commissioner, his order was not sustainable.

 

The Tribunal further held that Revenue was aggrieved when the case was remanded vide such remand orders, Commissioner also laid down crucial criteria to be followed for adopting valuation and as the said remand order of the Commissioner was not appealed, the appeals before the Tribunal were allowed.

 

The Tribunal also held that in case when transaction value is not acceptable and there is no evidence of contemporaneous imports, the value of secondary goods can be determined after making appropriate and reasonable deductions from value of prime or new goods.

[Commissioner v. Gunvantrai & Co. - 2003 (155) E.L.T. A72 (S.C.)]