The assessee was issued three show cause notices covering the following period :- S.No.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/legal-analysis-of-claim-for-loss-of-profit-in-delayed-contract/
26.3.99-SCN No 12/Commar.-AUD- 99/26.3.99 April 94 to Feb.,99 Rs.
The revenue’s appeal was allowed by this Court which remanded the matter for fresh consideration, inter alia, observing that the mere rejection of the highest rate was insufficient and the Court had to decide on the basis of judicial discretion of the assessing officer, whether there was any rationale in the fixation done and what was the appropriate method of valuation.
Therefore, while determining the price of the goods being cleared for captive consumption by invoking Rule 6(b)
(i), on the basis of the price of comparable goods of the same assessee or other 4 assesses, the most conservative price must be adopted, not the highest of the prices as it will loose the character of the normal price.”
Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that CESTAT fell into error in not accepting the Commissioner’s determination that the value of the goods were properly determined under Rule 6(b)(i). In other words, the sale must be wholesale and not a retail one in order that the price realised may be termed the ‘wholesale cash price’.
On the question whether the appellant was bound to pay customs duty on the basis of clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 30 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, the Privy Council held that since the sales were to customers direct, the real value of the goods cannot be ascertained under clause (a) of Section 30 and that clause (b) of Section 30 was applicable. It is to be a ‘cash price’, that is to say a price free from any augmentation for credit or other advantage allowed to a buyer; it is to be a net price, that is to say it is a price ‘less trade discount’ “.
The impugned order of the 2 3 7 CESTAT is accordingly affirmed.
Case Title: COMMR.OF CEN.EXC Vs. M/S J.R. ORGANICS LTD. (2023 INSC 183)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008502-008502 / 2009
