1994 (12) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1984 with M/s. Honda Motors Co. Ltd., Japan. M/s. Honda Motors IKCDo. Ltd., Japan have equity participation of 26% in the Indian Company. M/s. Honda Motors Co. Ltd., New Delhi among other things, designs, drawings, standards, specifications or other data etc. were also granted industrial property rights like patents, utility models, symbols, designs, trade-marks, brand services marks and other abbreviations relating to the products. They have also granted know-how pertaining to parts which will be manufactured by those who will be granted sub-contracts. In consideration of the services provided by the licensor M/s. Honda Motors Co. Ltd., Japan, Indian Company shall pay a lumpsum fees of US $ 5,00,000/- and also royalty of 4% of the ex-f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bunal s decision [1990 (48) E.L.T. 141]. 2. Arguing for the appellant Collector the learned Senior Departmental Representative Shri B.K. Singh pointed out that the decision of Maruti Udyog relied upon by the Collector (Appeals) related to Valuation Rules prior to 1988 which are not applicable to the present case, to which Valuation Rules of 1988 are applicable based on determination of transaction value. Referring to Para-6 of the Maruti Udyog decision, learned Senior Departmental Representative urged that it did not consider whether the price was the same at which the Collaborator Suzuki was selling the goods in Japan. Value under Section 14 is a deemed value and, the Senior Departmental Representative pleaded, negotiated price cannot be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... these decisions similar arguments as now presented on behalf of the Department had not found acceptance, pointed out the learned Counsel. 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we are inclined to hold that the respondents case is covered by the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the Collector (Appeals) in his order and also by the decisions subsequent thereto cited before us by the learned Counsel [Paras-17 and 18 of the Collector (Appeals)] clearly bring out the factual similarity of the present case to the facts in the case of Maruti Udyog (Supra) and also to the later decision of Eicher Motors Ltd. (Supra). The arguments submitted by the learned Departmental Representative before the Tribunal in p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X