9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are all excisable commodities. They imported various parts of computer printers including the impugned goods namely shuttle assembly imported under Bill of Entry dated 21st January 2003. The Revenue conducted certain investigations and found that the shuttle assembly is not entitled for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 as the said assembly had many built in Populated Printed Circuit Boards (PPCB) and as per the explanation given in Sl. No. 276 of the said Notification, the exemption will not be available in the case of an assembly which includes PPCBs. It was further noticed that the appellants paid royalty on the printers manufactured by them in terms of the agreement entered wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned goods namely shuttle assembly. (iii) Relying on the Tribunal s decision in the case of Collector of Customs v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [1987 (28) E.L.T. 390 (T)] upheld by the Apex Court, the learned Advocate contended that any consideration paid under technical agreement for manufacturing goods in India and importing of critical components (shuttle assembly in this case) under the said agreement would not by itself lead to conclusion that the payment of such consideration is a condition for sale and therefore, is liable to be included in the transaction of such imported components unless it is clearly proved that the payment of such royalty has a nexus with the import of the said component. (iv) There is nothing in the manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not the case of the Department that the relationship between the parties had influenced the price in respect of the consignment under question. (x) The value of US$ 612 adopted by the Commissioner is not comparable inasmuch as there is a gap of more than a month in respect of the consignment under comparison and also the commercial levels. (xi) Since there is no element of fraud or suppression or mis-declaration imposition of penalty under Section 114A is not correct. (xii) The demand of differential duty arose only on account of the difference of opinion on the entitlement of exemption notification. (xiii) After realizing that they are not entitled for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icals [1998 (99) E.L.T. 33 (S.C.) = (1998 (25) RLT 327 (S.C.) (2) Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. UOI [1999 (112) E.L.T. 772 (S.C.)] (3) Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 (T) = 1999 (35) RLT 9 (CEGAT)] (4) Bihar Ispat Udyog v. CCE, Jamshedpur [2001 (130) E.L.T. 231 (T)] (5) CCE, Meerut v. Kuchhal Udyog [2000 (115) E.L.T. 778 (T)]. (xviii) In view of the bona fide impression on the question of includibility of royalty no mis-declaration can be attributed to the appellant so as to invoke Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, redemption fine of Rs. 66 lakhs is not sustainable. 5. The learned SDR took us through the OIO and impressed upon us that the adjudicating authority has exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them in the manufacture of printers for which royalty has to be paid. Therefore, one can safely come to the conclusion that payment of royalty is a condition of sale of the imported goods namely shuttle assemblies. The Original Authority has come to this finding after going through the relevant provisions of the agreement between the foreign supplier and the appellant. In terms of Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuations Rules, 1998 is includible in the assessable value of the impugned goods. The reliance placed on Apex Court s decision in CC (P) v. Essar Gujarat Ltd., as reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.) is in order. 7. As regards the valuation of the shuttle assemblies as US$ 612 per unit the adjudicating authority has gone by para- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
