9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the dropping of charge of valuation was confirmed by the first appellate authority. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a Joint Venture Company (JVC) promoted by M/s. Nedwind Rhenen n.v., Netherland and the Indian Company M/s. Weizmann Ltd., Bom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w fee in lump sum of Rs. 25,35,080/- but did not pay the agreed amount of Rs. 47,50,000/-. The appellants were further required to pay maximum royalty of US $ 5 lakhs in one year however as per the clause in the agreement no value payable for the first 60 machines to be manufactured and sold by them as they have not sold 60 machines. Therefore, they were not required to pay royalty to their foreig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he agreement that the respondent are not bound to procure the components from the foreign collaborators only. Para 6.5 of the agreement clearly allows them to procure the components, parts, accessories, etc. whether in India or from outside. There is thus no condition binding the respondents to purchase from the foreign collaborators only. Similarly, the royalty is also related to the goods manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill the ratio of the Tribunal ruling in the case of Panalfa Dongwon India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 287 (Tri.-LB) is squarely applicable in this case. The impugned is therefore, legal and proper and merits no interference". 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Heard both sides and gone through the impugned order. The Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
