The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for enhancing the value of a second-hand car so as to demand differential customs duty without giving notice to the assessee.
Lakshmi & Co, the appellant assessee appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for interfering with the valuation of the car redetermining the same and directing the adjudicating authority to quantify the differential duty payable.
N. Viswanathan, the counsel for the assessee contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have enhanced the value of the car to demand higher duty.
Further submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) revising the value of the car is against the provisions contained in Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962.
R. Rajaraman, the counsel for the department relied on the decisions made by the lower authorities and contended that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was as per the law and liable to be sustained.
The Bench observed that without having an opportunity to defend the enhancement of the value of the car, as decided by the original authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) had revised the value of the car to demand differential duty.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) revising the value of the car while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
