9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ape, Adv For the Respondent : Shri M.S. Reddy, Dy. Commr. (A.R.) PER : S.K. Gaule Heard both sides. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order dated 29/1/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), Mumbai. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants filed Bill of Entry dated 18.7.2007 for import of one consignment consisted of promotional materials and ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticed or there exists reasons other than the influence of relationship to doubt the value, assessing group may evaluate the value of the imported goods. The appellants challenged this order before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order 134/2009/NMCH/DC/Docks(Imp)/2009-10 dated upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order. The appellants filed Writ Petition No. 10089 of 2010 before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distribution right fee has no connection with sale proceeds or profits of the appellants. The contention is that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) herself admitted in her impugned order that irrespective of number of vehicles imported from Audi AG and or even if no vehicles are imported by the appellants, the lump sum sole distribution fee is payable under the agreement. After such clear finding, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the department is that it is found on scrutiny that the distribution rights fee has been determined with reference to an agreed proportion of the average annual projected net profit for the period 1 st July, 2008 to 30 th June, 2013. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. The department has loaded assessable value of Rs. 4.963 crores per annum under Rule 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods. We further find and agree with the contention of the appellants that the amount of Rs. 4.963 corres per annum sought to be loaded to assessable value is towards Sole Distribution Rights fees and the amount and its determination is a mechanism to determine the quantum of fee. We further find that the department could not show any evidence that the aforesaid fee is liable to be loaded in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
