Page 60 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

A34 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Tag with S.L.P. (C) No. 18214 of 2017.”
The Punjab & Haryana High Court in its impugned order had set aside
adjudication orders passed after inordinate delay of 7 years from the date of is-
suance of SCNs. It rejected department’s plea that delay was on account, inter
alia, of pendency of matter in higher Courts.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. Krishna
Prasad, AOR, Mr. Rajnish Prasad and Ms. Sunita Rani
Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Valuation (Customs) — Photocopies of export declarations
filed before foreign Customs authorities cannot be
the basis for enhancement of assessable value of im-
ported goods when covering letter thereof not pro-
duced by Revenue
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice S.A.
Bobde, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant on
5-2-2020 dismissed the Civil Appeal Nos. 6240-6241 of 2009 filed by Commis-
sioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai (Respondent being Anil Kainya & Associa-
tions Pvt. Ltd.) against the CESTAT Final Order Nos. A/786-787/2006-
WZB/CSTB, dated 14-8-2006 as reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 72 (Tri.-Mumbai)
(Kainya & Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner). While dismissing the appeal, the
Supreme Court passed the following order :
“Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the
records of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appeals, being
devoid of any merit, are liable to be dismissed and, are dismissed accord-
ingly.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the un-
signed photocopies of export declarations filed before foreign Customs authori-
ties and relied upon by the Revenue to allege undervaluation of imported goods
could not be presumed to be genuine under Section 139 of Customs Act, 1962 in
absence of any covering letter/forwarding letter of those authorities to Indian
Customs. In absence of any evidence of payment of additional remittance of for-
eign exchange over and above the declared invoice value to the exporter, the en-
hancement of value rejecting the transaction value solely on the basis of the
aforesaid declaration could not be sustained.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Anil Katiyar,
AOR, Mr. Devashish Bharuka and Ms. Binu Tamta,
Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Balraj Dewan, AOR, Mr. Shekhar Gupta and
Mohd. Shahbaz, Advocates, for the Respondent.
Fan parts — Rotors, stator, down case, top case and down
rod except blades imported together as a set, whether
classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8414 or
under Heading 8503?
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M.
Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari on 7-2-2020 after con-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  108