Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (5) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt for the manufacture of continuous casting refractories. 2. At the outset of the hearing, a technical objection was raised by the Senior Departmental Representative, Shri K.K.Biswas. It was pointed out by Shri Biswas that the appeal has been filed against the Order of the Collector, but communicated through the Assistant Collector. As such, the appeal should have been filed either before the Collector (Appeals) or the matter may be remanded for passing of appropriate orders by the Collector. After going through the Order, we find that the impugned Order though communicated by the Assistant Collector, has in fact been passed by the Collector as stated in the Order itself. The Order also directs the appellant to file an appeal against the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sequently, the appellant applied for registration of the contract relating to purchase of the said Press for availing the benefit of project import. Special Valuation Section, however, raised a doubt that a part of the fees and royalty payable to the appellant s collaborators, M/s. HCL ought to have been loaded in the CIF Value of the Press for assessment to duty. The Press was, however, released on deposit of Securities and other formalities and subsequently, erected and commissioned under the supervision of Kobelco s engineers. 4. After a lot of correspondence between the appellant and the Customs Authorities and placing of number of documents, the resultant impugned Order loaded the gross invoice price of the Press by 4.81% by adjustin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ead with Section 14(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Arguing on behalf of the appellant, Shri S.K.Bagaria, learned Advocate took us through the various clauses of the collaboration agreement and the other documents on the file. He submitted that there was no justification whatsoever, for loading the price of the Press with a part of the lump-sum payment and technical know-how fee paid to their collaborators, M/s. HCL. He clarified that the Press was imported from M/s. NIC which is a Trading House of M/s. Kobel Co., the manufacturer and the technical know-how fee was paid to M/s. HCL who are their collaborators. There is no relationship between M/s. NIC and M/s. HCL. The contract with M/s. NIC was entered into after floating global tender .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l know-how fee paid to M/s. HCL cannot be added to the value of the Press imported from all-together different manufacturer. He pleaded for allowing the appeal. 6. Learned S.D.R., Shri Biswas appearing on behalf of the respondent Collector reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and emphasised that the adjustments made in the gross invoice value of the goods under Rules 9(1)(c), 9(1)(d) and 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, was in accordance with law. 7. According to the Department, the foreign supplier of Press and the appellant are related person and the know-how fee paid to their collaborator is a part of the assessable value of the Press because their collaborator was t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... manufacturers of the Press in question nor the suppliers of the same, it is found that the matter is no more res-integra. It stands settled by a catena of Judgments of the Tribunal having the seal of approval by the Honourable Supreme Court. All these Judgments including the one given by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Mahendra and Mahendra Ltd., [1995 (76) E.L.T. 481 (SC)] were discussed by the Tribunal in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 388 (Tri.) = 1996 (12) RLT 7 (CEGAT-A). All these Judgments are to the effect that payment of lump-sum royalty or technical know-how fee paid or payable to the foreign collaborator under an agreement cannot form part of the price .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates