9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. Shri U.H. Jadhav, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President]. The appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of specific transmission gears for export to M/s. Fairfield Manufacturing Inc. USA, imported cutting tools such as Hobs, broaches, cutters etc. Since the suppliers and appellants were related persons, the question arose as to whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents were available for production before the adjudicating authority. Pursuant to the above order the case was heard afresh by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, who by the order dated 24-4-2006 ordered the payment of lump sum fee of US$ 20 Lakhs paid/payable by the appellants to the foreign company to be added to the invoice value in terms of Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely. It is against this remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the present appeal has been filed. 2. We have heard both sides. We find force in the submission of the appellants that while the issue to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner was whether the relationship between the appellants and the foreign company had influenced the price of the cutting tools imported by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t since the Deputy Commissioner to whom the case was remanded by the Tribunal for the purpose of recording a finding as to whether the relationship had influenced the price, and no such finding has been recorded, the order dated 24-4-2006 of the Deputy Commissioner has become final in the absence of any challenge by the Revenue. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have sent back even t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
