Page 44 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

A102 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the period of
three months provided under Section 129D(3) of Customs Act, 1962 for review of
adjudication order is to be computed from the date of its signing by the adjudi-
cating authority and not from the date of its communication. The review order
having been passed on 23-6-2015 against the impugned adjudication order was
clearly barred by time.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, Sr. Standing Counsel,
for the Appellant.
Mr. R. Parthasarathy, for M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran, for
the Respondent.

Valuation (Customs) — Export of iron ore fines — Rejection
of consignment by original purchaser cannot be a
ground for reduction in value when goods, after their
landing on port of destination sold to another pur-
chaser and test report relating to Fe content not chal-
lenged by exporter
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhu-
shan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah on 18-11-2019 after condoning the delay
dismissed the Civil Appeal Diary No. 40310 of 2016 filed by Hira Steels Ltd.
against the CESTAT Final Order Nos. A/88051-88052/2016-WZB/CB, dated
21-6-2016 as reported in 2016 (343) E.L.T. 1058 (Tri.-Mumbai) (Hira Steels Ltd. v.
Commissioner). While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court passed the fol-
lowing order :
“Delay condoned.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if
any, stands disposed of.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the rejection
of export consignment of iron ore fines by the foreign purchaser cannot be the
reason for reduction in value thereof when goods, after their landing on port of
destination sold to another purchaser after taking negotiations with him particu-
larly when the price of such goods, as per contract, was depended on Fe content
found therein and the test report of Department’s Dy. Chief Chemist in respect of
Fe content, was not challenged by the exporter.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR, Mr. Krishna Mohan
K. and Mr. Dania Nayyar, Advocates, for the Appel-
lant.
Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. Krish-
na Prasad, AOR, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Mr. Aaditya
Mishra, Mr. Merusagar Samantray, Ms. Smita
Choudhury and Mr. Praveen Gaur, Advocates, for the
Respondent.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  44