9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a sum of Rs. 43,000.00 was also payable by the appellant to M/s. J. Mahabeer Co. Pvt. Ltd. This amount was described in the contract as fee for technical advice to be given by M/s. J. Mahabeer Co. Pvt. Ltd. The printing machine was imported pursuant to that agreement. It was provisionally assessed to duty and clearance was effected. Thereafter, it was noticed by the department that over and above the amount mentioned in the invoice, commission was payable by the appellant purchaser to M/s. J. Mahabeer Co. Ltd. The amount so payable and actually paid was to be included in the price of the machine and duty realised accordingly. In this view, show cause notice was issued requiring the appellant to state why the commission payable to M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt alone was made. Duty thus assessed on provisional basis was paid by the appellant herein and got the machine cleared. Thereafter, some time in March 1989, assessment was finalised. We presume that the final order was passed in March 1989 only on the basis of the statement to that effect contained in the impugned order. Learned Counsel representing the appellant was not in a position to show when the final order of assessment was received by him from the department. Pursuant to that final order of assessment, learned Counsel representing the appellant concedes that a sum of Rs. 19,000.00 and odd was deposited. The date on which the said deposit was made is not known to the counsel. Without knowing the date of deposit, we are not in a posi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The third contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the Collector in the impugned order was not justified in imposing duty on 20% of the value of the machine as commission payable to M/s. J. Mahabeer Co. Duty on 20% of the value has been demanded as differential duty. Collector in the impugned order refers to other imports which were adjudicated upon by him. In those cases, he demanded differential duty on 20% of the CIF value. The imposition of such differential duty can only be on the basis of the terms of the contract under which those printing machines were imported. In the instant case the contract entered into between the appellant and M/s. J. Mahabeer Co., the Indian agent of the foreign manufacturer, showed the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
