TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority as not proper. In view of this position, the contention of the appellants also holds no water. As far as the appellants' submission on merits are concerned, we find that the original authority has not discussed implications of various expenditure incurred by the appellants in relation to technical assistance and management service fee, IT Infrastructure fee, Brand Sharing cost, Business Promotion Expenses and Training Expenses as also certain other remittance made to their principals. The original authority must discuss each of these expenses and come to his finding whether any of these expenses have affected invoice value of the goods being imported after going through various agreements relating to such remittance as also examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Sec. 129D(2) of the Customs Act was barred by limitation of time. It was stated that the said review order dated 4.8.2011 was issued on 9.8.2011 while the review order has been passed on 25.11.2011 and in view of the said facts, the review order is barred by limitation of time. The second contention of the appellants is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the original adjudication authority. According to the appellants the said power has been taken away under the amended Sec. 128 A(3) of the Customs Act, and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have remanded the matter back. The next contention of the appellants is relating to the import of the goods. According to the appellants they have inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 and the review order has been passed by the Commissioner on 25.11.11 which is within the three months period prescribed under the law. In view of this position, we do not find that the contention of the appellants is correct and hold that the appeal has been filed within the time limit. The second contention of the appellants is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority. In support of this contention, ld. Consultant for the appellants quoted this Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai reported in 2013 (290) ELT 723 (Tri-Mumbai). We have gone through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned has observed as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We are unable to agree with this contention. Revenue is not trying to charge customs duty on the expenditure incurred by the appellants but is required to examine whether such expenditure would form part of the assessable value of the goods imported. Service Tax Law and Customs Law are different. We, therefore, reject this contention of the appellants. 8. In view of the above, we are of the view that the matter needs to be examined by the original authority in detail and the original authority is required to come to his finding on each of these expenditure after examining the related documents like agreements, invoices or any other documents considered appropriate and decide the matter thereafter. Therefore, the matter is remanded back t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|