Page 334 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

980 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Validity of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 - See under
CUSTOMS BROKER LICENSING REGULATIONS, 2018 ............ 340
— of Notification Nos. 16/2008-C.E. and 36/2008-C.E. - See under AREA
BASED EXEMPTION ................................ 495
VALUATION (CENTRAL EXCISE) :
— Charge of undervaluation of goods solely based on statement of buyers
not presented for cross-examination not sustainable in absence of any
documentary evidence showing cash receipts from buyers particularly
when such statement inconsistent as they initially admitted cash
payment to assessee through angadias/dealers but later on stated that
the same handed over to their employee - Further, statement of co-
accused manufacturers who were also not presented for cross-
examination and also being inconclusive not admissible in evidence -
Prices to different buyers based upon quality of goods also cannot be
basis to allege undervaluation - Sections 4 and 4A of Central Excise Act,
1944 — Shri Krishna Industries v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Vadodara-II (Tri. -
Ahmd.) ......................................... 121
— VAT subsidy received by appellant under Rajasthan Investment
Promotion Scheme in Form 37B for disbursement of subsidy but it was
utilized for payment of sales tax, whether the said amount can be
included in transaction value - By following the decision given in favour
of appellant in Shree Cement Ltd. [2019 (366) E.L.T. 900 (Tri. - Del.)] -
Impugned order set aside — Wonder Cement Ltd. v. Central Excise & Service Tax,
Udaipur (Tri. - Del.) ................................... 95
VALUATION (CUSTOMS) :
— Drawings for vessels - ‘Nil’ commercial value cannot be based on
superfluity of goods in operations of importer - Section 14 of Customs
Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 849
— Exemption privilege not claimed - In such case, valuation has to be done
under Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods)
Rules, 2007 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 849
— Export of leather jackets - Overvaluation in order to higher amount of
drawback - Solely on the basis of sample test report of Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research - Central Leather Research Institute
(CSIR - CLRI) indicating in its second report the lower cost break up
pursuant to suggestion made by DRI’s communication letter sent to it,
rejection of declared value not justified particularly when said institute
not an authorized agency to determine price of export goods - Further,
valuation of export goods has to be done in terms of Customs Valuation
(Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 by sequential
application of Rules thereof - Order of adjudicating authority directly
applying Rules 5(a) and 5(c) ibid without first ruling out possibility of
applicability of Rules 3 and 4 ibid not sustainable particularly when no
market enquiry conducted in respect of the export consignment - Section
14 of Customs Act, 1962 — RBT Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port),
Kolkata (Tri. - Kolkata) .................................. 257
— Food supplement containing beef imported with paper without
declaring/misdeclaring description/value - Value of such goods based
on value of identical goods imported from a different country and
applying Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value
of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, not sustainable - However, value of food
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  334