Venus Optics Vs. Cc

Venus Optics vs Cc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 08, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37302

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/37302
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Dec 08, 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Venus Optics

Respondent

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(183)ELT404TriDel

Excerpt

2. the appellant made import of velcro tape and filed bill of entry.the value declared by the appellant is not accepted by the revenue and it was enhanced on the basis of import made by m/s. fancy fashion. the contention of the appellant is that the m/s. fancy fashion made import of the goods from taiwan whereas the import made by the appellant from china. the contention is that the goods imported by m/s. fancy fashions are not comparable goods as the appellant made import and filed bill of entry dated 21.8.2001 and m/s. fancy fashions imported the goods in the month of january 2001 and april 2001. the contention of the appellant is also that they made import of 4400 kgs. whereas m/s. fancy fashions has made import of only 2616 kgs.3. the contention of the revenue is that the goods are comparable goods and m/s. fancy fashion declared the value of the goods at the higher side, therefore, the lower authorities rightly enhanced the value of the imported goods.4. we find that in this case the value declared by the appellant was enhanced on the basis of import made by m/s. fancy fashions. m/s. fancy fashions made import from taiwan whereas the present import is from china. further we find that m/s. fancy fashions made import in the month of january 2001 and april 2001 whereas the present import is august 2001 and the quantity is also almost double then the import made by m/s. fancy fashions. in these circumstances, the goods imported by m/s. fancy fashions are not comparable goods for enhancing the value of goods imported by the appellant. the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Full Judgment

2. The appellant made import of Velcro Tape and filed Bill of Entry.

The value declared by the appellant is not accepted by the Revenue and it was enhanced on the basis of import made by M/s. Fancy Fashion. The contention of the appellant is that the M/s. Fancy Fashion made import of the goods from Taiwan whereas the import made by the appellant from China. The contention is that the goods imported by M/s. Fancy Fashions are not comparable goods as the appellant made import and filed Bill of Entry dated 21.8.2001 and M/s. Fancy Fashions imported the goods in the month of January 2001 and April 2001. The contention of the appellant is also that they made import of 4400 Kgs. whereas M/s. Fancy Fashions has made import of only 2616 Kgs.

3. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods are comparable goods and M/s. Fancy Fashion declared the value of the goods at the higher side, therefore, the lower authorities rightly enhanced the value of the imported goods.

4. We find that in this case the value declared by the appellant was enhanced on the basis of import made by M/s. Fancy Fashions. M/s. Fancy Fashions made import from Taiwan whereas the present import is from China. Further we find that M/s. Fancy Fashions made import in the month of January 2001 and April 2001 whereas the present import is August 2001 and the quantity is also almost double then the import made by M/s. Fancy Fashions. In these circumstances, the goods imported by M/s. Fancy Fashions are not comparable goods for enhancing the value of goods imported by the appellant. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Venus Optics vs Cc Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, Vice, N T C.N.B.