9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 is unsustainable - the addition was not warranted since it was beyond the scope of the order of remand which had earlier been passed by the Tribunal- the revenue had not challenged the order of the adjudicating authority on the ground that no finding had been recorded as to whether the relationship between the parties has influenced the price – appeal allowed – decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2013 - Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud And A. A. Sayed, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/by PDS Legal For the Respondent : Mr. R. Ashokan JUDGMENT (Per : Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.) : 1. Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order on 24 April 2006 by which he directed that a lumpsum of US$ 20 lakhs paid or payable by the Petitioner to its counter part in the United States was required to be added to the invoice value under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and by an order dated 31 August 2006, the order of the adjudicating authority was set aside and the proceedings were remanded back for a fresh adjudication. The Petitioner was aggrieved by the order of remand and further filed an appeal before the CESTAT. By an order dated 28 February 2007, the appeal filed by the Petitioner was allowed and the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was set aside. The CEST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for fresh determination. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal." 3. On 17 October 2012 the Deputy Commissioner of Customs informed the Petitioner that in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 20 April 2006, which has attained finality, the Petitioner was liable to pay customs duty on the amount of US$ 20 Lakhs paid for technical know-how from the foreign suppliers. The Petitioner responded by its letter dated 20 October 2012 submitting that the order of the Tribunal categorically held that the Deputy Commissioner had rendered a finding on the issue of a payment of US$ 20 Lakhs which in fact was not an issue to be decided by him as per the Tribunal's order dated 28 June 2004. In this background it was stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that this was not the issue to be decided by the adjudicating authority in terms of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 28 June 2004 remanding the proceedings. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal. The department is evidently and manifestly in error in contending that the result of the order of the Tribunal is that the original order of adjudication would stand revived. It needs to reiterated that in the original order of adjudication dated 24 December 2003 the Deputy Commissioner had ordered the addition of a lumpsum fee of US$ 20 Lakhs payable to the counter part of the Petitioner in the United States to the invoice value under Section 9(1)(c) of the Valuation Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
