MOHAN SALES (INDIA) Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants filed this appeal against the order -in -appeal dated 2 -9 -1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). In the impugned order, the value of cordless telephones imported by the appellants, was enhanced.

(2.) LD . Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that in this case the appellants made an import of cordless telephones of various models and filed three different bill of entries. He submits that the re. enue had not accepted the value declared by the appellants. Therefore, the value was enhanced. He submits that the matter was adjudicated by Shri S. Nandi, Addl. Commissioner and, thereafter, the adjudication order was passed by Smt. I Dutta Majumdar, Addl. Commissioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. He submits that the adjudication was conducted by one officer and the adjudication order was passed by another officer. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Komal Offset v. C.C., New Delhi reported in 1996 (67) E.L.T. 618 (Tribunal) and submits that in this case the Tribunal held that issue of an assessment order, not by the Assistant Collector, who had passed the order enhancing the assessable value but by the different Assistant Collector, is against the principles of natural justice.

(3.) ON merits, the ld. Counsel submits that in this case the appellants made an import of cordless telephones of Models LS 827, WT 3990 and JKL 608. Ld. Counsel submits that the revenue wants to enhance the assessable value of imported cordless telephones on the basis of quotations supplied by M/s. Electronics Co. Ltd., Hongkong. He, further, submits that the revenue only relied upon one import made by M/s. Rishi Exports for enhancement of price. He submits that as per M/s. Rishi Exports, the model of the telephone was LS 825, which is a different model imported by the appellants. Ld. Counsel submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Laxmi Colour Lab v. C.C. reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal) held that enhancement of value on the basis of mere quotations or offer is not pesmissible under Section 14 of the Customs Act. He submits that the appeal filed by the Revenue against this decision, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. A183. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.