9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. - This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 296/2003, dated 16-7-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The appellants are the branch office of a foreign supplier namely Montronix Inc USA. The appellants have imported tool monitoring system and parts thereof from the Principal Company. There are third party imports also. There is a great variation between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records of the case. The appellants have a branch office of M/s. Montronics. There is very clear evidence that the transaction between them is not at arm s length. This can be seen clearly from the price variation between the price charged to the appellants and that to third party importer. For Example, an item which costs 1000 US $ for the appellants costs 1,706 US $ for a third party importer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llation, commissioning, system fine tuning, post installation audits, visits on Customer s request, visits during warranty period, warranty coverage for hardwares etc. (ii) Training Customer s team on operational usage, maintenance, to derive benefits; and (iii) PLC and software modification cages. Further they have explained that the price to them does not include the above and they in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant and third party import is to the tune of 148%. Since the appellant incurs certain expenses as mentioned earlier, the adjudicating authority allowed a benefit of 30% of the difference of 148% and decided to load the assessable value by 100%. The reasoning of the adjudicating authority is quite sound. The same has been endorsed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Moreover the appellant sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
