COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDAversusM/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRADING PVT. LTD.

1192                SUPREME[2018]
                            COURT 14 REPORTS
                                     S.C.R. 1192             [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A              COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND
                        SERVICE TAX, NOIDA
                                          v.
           M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRADING PVT. LTD.
 B                    (Civil Appeal Nos. 18300-18305 of 2017)
                               DECEMBER 10, 2018
                 [A. K. SIKRI AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
              Customs Act, 1962 – s.14 – Valuation of goods for purposes
 C     of assessment – Respondent imported various varieties of Aluminum
       scrap and filed bills of entry along with invoices and purchase orders
       in respect therein declaring the transaction value of the imported
       goods for the purpose of paying customs duty – Declared value
       was not accepted by the Assessing officer who found same to be
       low and on re-assessment, increased the assessable value – Writ
 D     petition by the respondent – Deputy Commissioner of Customs on
       the direction of the High Court passed a speaking order rejecting
       the transaction value declared by the respondent – Assessment order
       passed by the Assessing Officer was challenged before the
       Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed – However, appeals
 E     of the respondent were allowed by the Tribunal thereby rejecting
       the enhanced assessable value by the Revenue – On appeal, held:
       The normal rule as provided by the s.14 of the Act is that the
       assessable value has to be arrived at on the basis of the price actually
       paid, and that was mentioned in the Bills of Entry – Tribunal had
       clearly mentioned that this declared price could be rejected only
 F     with cogent reasons by undertaking the exercise as to on what basis
       the Assessing Authority could hold that the paid price was not the
       sole consideration of the transaction value – Since, there was no
       such exercise done by the Assessing Authority to reject the price
       declared in the Bills of Entry, order-in-original was, therefore,
 G     erroneous – The observations made by the Tribunal were correct.
             Dismissing the appeals, the Court
            HELD: 1. The law is clear, as per Sections 14(1) and
       14(1-A) of the Customs Act, 1962, the value of any goods
       chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be the price as
 H
                                        1192
 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA v.                    1193
     M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRD. PVT. LTD.

referred to in that provision. Section 14(1) is a deeming provision     A
as it talks of ‘deemed value’ of such goods. Therefore, normally,
the Assessing Officer is supposed to act on the basis of price
which is actually paid and treat the same as assessable value/
transaction value of the goods. This, ordinarily, is the course of
action which needs to be followed by the Assessing Officer. This
                                                                        B
principle of arriving at transaction value to be the assessable
value applies. That is also the effect of Rule 3(1) and Rule 4 (1) of
the Customs Valuation Rules, namely, the adjudicating authority
is bound to accept price actually paid or payable for goods as the
transaction value. Exceptions are, however, carved out and
enumerated in Rule 4(2). As per that provision, the transaction         C
value mentioned in the Bills of Entry can be discarded in case it
is found that there are any imports of identical goods or similar
goods at a higher price at around the same time or if the buyers
and sellers are related to each other. In order to invoke such a
provision it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to give
                                                                        D
reasons as to why the transaction value declared in the Bills of
Entry was being rejected; to establish that the price is not the
sole consideration; and to give the reasons supported by material
on the basis of which the Assessing Officer arrives at his own
assessable value. [Para 10][1200-B-F]
      2. The observations of the Tribunal made in the impugned          E
judgment are to be appreciated in the light of the principles of
law specified, inasmuch as the Tribunal has categorically remarked
that the normal rule is that assessable value has to be arrived at
on the basis of the price which is actually paid, as provided by
Section 14 of the Customs Act. [Para 12][1202-E-G]                      F
      3. It is, therefore, rightly contended by the respondent
that the reason given for setting aside the order that the normal
rule was that the assessable value has to be arrived at on the
basis of the price which was actually paid, and that was mentioned
in the Bills of Entry. The Tribunal has clearly mentioned that          G
this declared price could be rejected only with cogent reasons by
undertaking the exercise as to on what basis the Assessing
Authority could hold that the paid price was not the sole
consideration of the transaction value. Since there is no such

                                                                        H
1194               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A     exercise done by the Assessing Authority to reject the price
       declared in the Bills of Entry, Order-in-Original was, therefore,
       clearly erroneous. [Para 13][1202-G-H; 1203-A-B]
             Eisher Tractors Ltd., Haryana v. Commissioner of
             Customs, Mumbai (2001) 1 SCC 315 : [2000] 4 Suppl.
 B           SCR 597 ; Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. South
             India Television (P) Ltd. (2007) 6 SCC 373 : [2007] 8
             SCR 95 – relied on.
             Chaudhary Ship Breakers v. Commissioner of Customs,
             Ahmedabad (2010) 10 SCC 576 : [2010] 12 SCR
 C           854 ; Commissioner of Customs, Vishakhapatnam v.
             Aggarwal Industries Ltd. (2012) 1 SCC 186 : [2011] 12
             SCR 1128 ; Commissioner of Customs v. Prabhu Dayal
             Prem Chand (2010) 13 SCC 535 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
 D
       [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 597        relied on              Para 8
       [2007] 8 SCR 95                relied on               Para 9
       [2010] 12 SCR 854              referred to            Para 9
       [2011] 12 SCR 1128             referred to            Para 9
 E
       (2010) 13 SCC 535              referred to            Para 14
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 18300-
       18305 of 2017.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2017 of the Customs,
 F
       Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Appeal
       Nos. C/70332/2016, C/70479-70482/2016 and C/70971/2016.
            K. Radhakrishna, Sr. Adv., Rupesh Kumar, Anurag, Mrs. B. Sunita
       Rao and B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Appellant.
 G          Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Adv. Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Neha Sangwan
       and Mrs. Mahima C. Shroff, Advs. for the Respondent.




 H
 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA v.                          1195
     M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRD. PVT. LTD.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                              A
      A. K. SIKRI, J.
       1. The issue raised in these appeals pertains to the transaction
value/assessable value in respect of imported Aluminum Scrap, which
was imported by the respondent herein. The respondent had imported
various varieties of the said Aluminum scrap during the period 27th           B
August, 2013 to 29th December, 2014 and filed 843 Bills of Entry along
with invoices and purchase orders in respect therein declaring the
transaction value of the imported goods for the purpose of paying custom
duty. The declared value was not accepted by the Assessing Officer
who found the same to be low. Accordingly, the said declared value            C
was rejected and reassessment was done by increasing the assessable
value.
       2. In a writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court of
Allahabad, on the directions of the High Court directed the Deputy
Commissioner of Customs, NOIDA passed a speaking order dated 25th             D
March, 2015, giving his reasons to reject the transaction value as declared
by the respondent and enhancing the same by taking into consideration
the value of imported goods, namely, grades of scrap Aluminum contents
therein as well as quantum of presence of other metals.
       3. The assessment order dated 25th March, 2015 passed by the           E
Assessing Officer was challenged by filing appeals before the
Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, NOIDA. All these
appeals were dismissed. Challenging the order of the Commissioner
(Appeals), the respondent approached the Customs, Excise and Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”). By
the impugned common judgment dated 17th January, 2017, the appeals            F
of the respondent were allowed thereby rejecting the enhancement of
assessable value by the Revenue. It is the said order of the Tribunal,
which is the subject matter of these appeals.
       4. The entire basis of the order of the Tribunal is contained in
paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment and since that paragraph contains        G
the reasons which persuaded the Tribunal to set aside the order of the
authorities below, we reproduce this para along with paragraph 8 which
disclosed the outcome of the appeals, in entirety.

                                                                              H
1196                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A           “7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of
             record, we find that the Original Authority was directed by the
             Hon’ble High Court to pass speaking order on the enhancement
             of assessable value. We find that the Original Authority in its
             Order-in-Original dated 25/03/2015 passed comments on the
             ground of writ petition and did not properly examine the evidence
 B
             available with the department required to be examined for
             enhancement of assessable value. Further, we find that as held in
             the case laws stated above and as provided by Section 14 of
             Customs Act, 1962, the assessable value has to be arrived at on
             the basis of the price which is actually paid and in a case the
 C           price is not sole consideration or if the buyers and sellers are
             related persons then after establishing that the price is not sole
             consideration the transaction value can be rejected and taking the
             other evidences into consideration the assessable value can be
             arrived at. Such exercise has not been done in these cases on
             hand. Therefore, we reject the enhancement of assessable value
 D
             in respect of the Bills of Entry which are involved in all the appeals
             being decided and we restore the assessable value as declared by
             the appellant in said Bills of Entry.
             8. In result, we set aside all the impugned Orders-in-Appeal and
             allow all the appeals. The appellant shall be entitled for
 E           consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
              5. The precise submission of Mr. K. Radhakrishna, learned senior
       counsel appearing for the Revenue was that as per the Tribunal itself,
       the reasons for upsetting the order in original are:

 F           (a) That he did not properly examine the evidences available with
       the Department, which were required to be examined for the purpose of
       enhancement of assessable value.
              (b) As per the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962
       and the case law in respect thereof, the assessable value has to be
 G     arrived at on the basis of the price which is actually paid and in case the
       price is not the sole consideration or if the buyers and sellers are related
       persons then after establishing that the price is not the sole consideration,
       the transaction value can be rejected. However, such exercise has not
       been done in these cases.

 H
 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA v.                            1197
M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRD. PVT. LTD. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

        6. It was submitted that if the Original Authority/Assessing Officer    A
had failed to examine the evidence that was available with the Department
and had not undertaken the exercise regarding price being not the sole
consideration, the Tribunal should have remanded the case back to the
Assessing Officer for examining the material and undertaking that
exercise. To put it otherwise, the entire thrust of the argument of Mr.
                                                                                B
Radhakrishna was that appeals could not have been allowed straightaway
by accepting the transaction value given by the respondent/assessee
and another opportunity should have been given to the Assessing Authority
in this behalf.
        7. This argument may seem to be attractive, but only when there
is a cursory look at the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal that the        C
Assessing Officer did not examine the evidence available with the
Department which was necessitated for such a purpose. However, the
observations of the Tribunal have to be understood in their entirety and
in the context in which these are made. The Tribunal has categorically
mentioned that as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act           D
and the principles laid down in the case law (which it referred to in the
earlier part of the judgment) interpreting this provision, the assessable
value has to be arrived at on the basis of the price which is actually paid.
It is the basic principle enshrined in the aforesaid provision, i.e., Section
14, which can be culled out from the catena of judgments pronounced
by this Court.                                                                  E

     8. In Eisher Tractors Ltd., Haryana vs. Commissioner of
Customs, Mumbai1, this Court held as under:
          “6. Under the Act customs duty is chargeable on goods. According
          to Section 14(1) of the Act, the assessment of duty is to be made     F
          on the value of the goods. The value may be fixed by the Central
          Government under Section 14(2). Where the value is not so fixed,
          the value has to be determined under Section 14(1). The value,
          according to Section 14(1), shall be deemed to be the price at
          which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale,
          for delivery at the time and place of importation — in the course     G
          of international trade. The word “ordinarily” necessarily implies
          the exclusion of “extraordinary” or “special” circumstances. This


1
    (2001) 1 SCC 315                                                            H
1198          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A     is clarified by the last phrase in Section 14 which describes an
       “ordinary” sale as one “where the seller and the buyer have no
       interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole
       consideration for the sale …”. Subject to these three conditions
       laid down in Section 14(1) of time, place and absence of special
 B     circumstances, the price of imported goods is to be determined
       under Section 14(1-A) in accordance with the Rules framed in
       this behalf.
       xxx       xxx      xxx
       9. These exceptions are in expansion and explicatory of the special
 C     circumstances in Section 14(1) quoted earlier. It follows that unless
       the price actually paid for the particular transaction falls within
       the exceptions, the Customs Authorities are bound to assess the
       duty on the transaction value.
       xxx       xxx      xxx
 D
       12. Rule 4(1) speaks of the transaction value. Utilisation of the
       definite article indicates that what should be accepted as the value
       for the purpose of assessment to customs duty is the price actually
       paid for the particular transaction, unless of course the price is
       unacceptable for the reasons set out in Rule 4(2). “Payable” in
 E     the context of the language of Rule 4(1) must, therefore, be read
       as referring to “theparticular transaction” and payability in respect
       of the transaction envisages a situation where payment of price
       may be deferred.
       xxx       xxx      xxx
 F
       13. That Rule 4 is limited to the transaction in question is also
       supported by the provisions of the other rules each of which provide
       for alternate modes of valuation and allow evidence of value of
       goods other than those under assessment to be the basis of the
       assessable value. Thus, Rule 5 allows for the transaction value to
 G
       be determined on the basis of identical goods imported into India
       at the same time; Rule 6 allows for the transaction value to be
       determined on the value of similar goods imported into India at
       the same time as the subject goods. Where there are no
       contemporaneous imports into India, the value is to be determined
 H
 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA v.                        1199
M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRD. PVT. LTD. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

    under Rule 7 by a process of deduction in the manner provided           A
    therein. If this is not possible the value is to be computed under
    Rule 7-A. When value of the imported goods cannot be determined
    under any of these provisions, the value is required to be determined
    under Rule 8 “using reasonable means consistent with the
    principles and general provisions of these Rules and sub-section
                                                                            B
    (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on the basis of
    data available in India”. If the phrase “the transaction value” used
    in Rule 4 were not limited to the particular transaction then the
    other rules which refer to other transactions and data would
    become redundant.
                                                                            C
    xxx       xxx      xxx
    22. In the case before us, it is not alleged that the appellant has
    misdeclared the price actually paid. Nor was there a misdescription
    of the goods imported as was the case in Padia Sales
    Corpn. [1993 Supp (4) SCC 57] It is also not the respondent’s
    case that the particular import fell within any of the situations       D
    enumerated in Rule 4(2). No reason has been given by the Assistant
    Collector for rejecting the transaction value under Rule 4(1) except
    the price list of vendor. In doing so, the Assistant Collector not
    only ignored Rule 4(2) but also acted on the basis of the vendor’s
    price list as if a price list is invariably proof of the transaction    E
    value. This was erroneous and could not be a reason by itself to
    reject the transaction value. A discount is a commercially-
    acceptable measure which may be resorted to by a vendor for a
    variety of reasons including stock clearance. A price list is really
    no more than a general quotation. It does not preclude discounts
    on the listed price. In fact, a discount is calculated with reference   F
    to the price list. Admittedly in this case a discount up to 30% was
    allowable in ordinary circumstances by the Indian agent itself.
    There was the additional factor that the stock in question was old
    and it was a one-time sale of 5-year-old stock. When a discount
    is permissible commercially, and there is nothing to show that the      G
    same would not have been offered to anyone else wishing to buy
    the old stock, there is no reason why the declared value in question
    was not accepted under Rule 4(1).”


                                                                            H
1200                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A           9. To the same effect, are other judgments, reiterating the aforesaid
       principle, such as, Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vs. South India
       Television (P) Ltd.2, Chaudhary Ship Breakers vs. Commissioner
       of Customs, Ahmedabad 3 and Commissioner of Customs,
       Vishakhapatnam vs. Aggarwal Industries Ltd.4.
 B            10. The law, thus, is clear. As per Sections 14(1) and 14(1-A),
       the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be
       the price as referred to in that provision. Section 14(1) is a deeming
       provision as it talks of ‘deemed value’ of such goods. Therefore, normally,
       the Assessing Officer is supposed to act on the basis of price which is
       actually paid and treat the same as assessable value/transaction value
 C     of the goods. This, ordinarily, is the course of action which needs to be
       followed by the Assessing Officer. This principle of arriving at transaction
       value to be the assessable value applies. That is also the effect of Rule
       3(1) and Rule 4 (1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, namely, the
       adjudicating authority is bound to accept price actually paid or payable
 D     for goods as the transaction value. Exceptions are, however, carved out
       and enumerated in Rule 4(2). As per that provision, the transaction
       value mentioned in the Bills of Entry can be discarded in case it is found
       that there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher
       price at around the same time or if the buyers and sellers are related to
       each other. In order to invoke such a provision it is incumbent upon the
 E     Assessing Officer to give reasons as to why the transaction value declared
       in the Bills of Entry was being rejected; to establish that the price is not
       the sole consideration; and to give the reasons supported by material on
       the basis of which the Assessing Officer arrives at his own assessable
       value.
 F           11. In South India Television (P) Ltd., the Court explained as to
       how the value is derived from the price and under what circumstances
       the deemed value mentioned in Section 14(1) can be departed with.
       Following discussion in the said judgment needs to be quoted hereunder:
              “10. We do not find any merit in this civil appeal for the following
 G            reasons. Value is derived from the price. Value is the function of
              the price. This is the conceptual meaning of value. Under Section
              2(41), “value” is defined to mean value determined in accordance
       2
         (2007) 6 SCC 373
       3
         (2010) 10 SCC 576
       4
 H       (2012) 1 SCC 186
 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA v.                       1201
M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRD. PVT. LTD. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

    with Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14 of the Customs Act,          A
    1962 is the sole repository of law governing valuation of goods.
    The Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 have been framed only in
    respect of imported goods. There are no rules governing the
    valuation of export goods. That must be done based on Section 14
    itself. In the present case, the Department has charged the
                                                                           B
    respondent importer alleging misdeclaration regarding the price.
    There is no allegation of misdeclaration in the context of the
    description of the goods. In the present case, the allegation is of
    underinvoicing. The charge of underinvoicing has to be supported
    by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods.
    It is for the Department to prove that the apparent is not the real.   C
    Under Section 2(41) of the Customs Act, the word “value” is
    defined in relation to any goods to mean the value determined in
    accordance with the provisions of Section 14(1). The value to be
    declared in the bill of entry is the value referred to above and not
    merely the invoice price.
                                                                           D
    xxx                xxx              xxx
    12. However, before rejecting the invoice price the Department
    has to give cogent reasons for such rejection. This is because the
    invoice price forms the basis of the transaction value. Therefore,
    before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or unacceptable,   E
    the Department has to find out whether there are any imports of
    identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the
    same time. Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, the
    question of importing Section 14(1-A) does not arise. In the
    absence of such evidence, invoice price has to be accepted as the
    transaction value. Invoice is the evidence of value. Casting           F
    suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to
    reject it as evidence of value of imported goods. Undervaluation
    has to be proved. If the charge of undervaluation cannot be
    supported either by evidence or information about comparable
    imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. If the          G
    Department wants to allege undervaluation, it must make detailed
    inquiries, collect material and also adequate evidence. When
    undervaluation is alleged, the Department has to prove it by
    evidence or information about comparable imports. For proving

                                                                           H
1202                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A            undervaluation, if the Department relies on declaration made in
              the exporting country, it has to show how such declaration was
              procured. We may clarify that strict rules of evidence do not apply
              to adjudication proceedings. They apply strictly to the courts’
              proceedings. However, even in adjudication proceedings, the AO
 B            has to examine the probative value of the documents on which
              reliance is placed by the Department in support of its allegation of
              undervaluation. Once the Department discharges the burden of
              proof to the above extent by producing evidence of
              contemporaneous imports at higher price, the onus shifts to the
              importer to establish that the invoice relied on by him is valid.
 C            Therefore, the charge of underinvoicing has to be supported by
              evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods.
              13. Section 14(1) speaks of “deemed value”. Therefore, invoice
              price can be disputed. However, it is for the Department to prove
              that the invoice price is incorrect. When there is no evidence of
 D            contemporaneous imports at a higher price, the invoice price is
              liable to be accepted. The value in the export declaration may be
              relied upon for ascertainment of the assessable value under the
              Customs Valuation Rules and not for determining the price at
              which goods are ordinarily sold at the time and place of importation.
 E            This is where the conceptual difference between value and price
              comes into discussion.”
              12. The observations of the Tribunal made in the impugned
       judgment are to be appreciated in the light of the principles of law specified
       in the aforesaid judgment, inasmuch as the Tribunal has categorically
 F     remarked that the normal rule is that assessable value has to be arrived
       at on the basis of the price which is actually paid, as provided by Section
       14 of the Customs Act and the case law referred to by it (In paragraph
       5, the Tribunal referred to its own judgments which follow the aforesaid
       principle laid down by this Court).
 G            13. It is, therefore, rightly contended by Mr. Dushyant A. Dave,
       learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent that the reason given
       for setting aside the order that the normal rule was that the assessable
       value has to be arrived at on the basis of the price which was actually
       paid, and that was mentioned in the Bills of Entry. The Tribunal has
 H
 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA v.                             1203
M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRD. PVT. LTD. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

clearly mentioned that this declared price could be rejected only with           A
cogent reasons by undertaking the exercise as to on what basis the
Assessing Authority could hold that the paid price was not the sole
consideration of the transaction value. Since there is no such exercise
done by the Assessing Authority to reject the price declared in the Bills
of Entry, Order-in-Original was, therefore, clearly erroneous.                   B
       14. In Commissioner of Customs vs. Prabhu Dayal Prem
Chand5, this Court was confronted with almost same kind of fact
situation. On the basis of the information received subsequently from
the London Metal Exchange (for short, ‘LME’) to the effect that the
price of the two metals, viz., brass scrap and copper scrap, in LME as           C
on the date of import was more than the price declared by the respondent,
demanded additional duty amounting to Rs. 90,248/- and Rs. 1,94,035
respectively, from the assessee on the said two Bills of Entry. This
order was set aside by the Tribunal and appeals there against by the
Customs were dismissed by this Court. The Court noted, while accepting
the plea of the assessee, that they were not confronted with any                 D
contemporaneous material relied upon by the Revenue for enhancing
the price declared by them in the Bills of Entry. It also noted the following
remarks of the Tribunal:
          “In the present case as mentioned above, even though there is a
          reference to contemporaneous import in the order passed by the         E
          Deputy Commissioner no material regarding such import has been
          placed before us or made available by the appellant at any point
          of time. Therefore, assessment in this case has to be taken as
          having been made purely on the basis of LME bulletin without
          any corroborative evidence of imports at or near that price which      F
          is not permissible under law. We, therefore, set aside the impugned
          order and allow the appeal.”
Dismissing the appeals, this Court observed as follows:
          “….It is manifest from the aforeextracted order of the Tribunal
          that no details of any contemporaneous imports or any other            G
          material indicating the price notified by LME had either been
          referred to by the adjudicating officer in the adjudication order or
          such material was placed before the Tribunal at the time of hearing
          of the appeal. The learned counsel for the Revenue has not been
5
    (2010) 13 SCC 535                                                            H
1204                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A           able to controvert the said observations by the Tribunal. In that
             view of the matter no fault can be found with the order passed by
             the Tribunal setting aside the additional demand created against
             the assessee.”
             15. We, thus, do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss
 B     the same.

       Ankit Gyan                                              Appeals dismissed.




 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H