9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity has examined the contract agreement between CIRIA and the appellant. We perused the contract agreement dated 11.02.1994, between CIRIA SpA Italy and MMTCL India - both the conditions have been dealt in detail in the OIO passed by the adjudicating authority. We find that MMTCL is imported the goods under project imports and used the goods in the manufacture of final products which is called Z Blocks, and the same were supplied as per the original contract between to RIL & CIRIA. We also find that as per clause (6) of agreement between CIRIA and MMTCL, appellants have to make payment of 10% as a commission if the final products directly sold. In the present case, it is clearly brought out in the OIO that there is no direct sale of finish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the OIO and allowed the Revenue appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant reiterated the finding of the adjudicating authority dated 02.02.2002 and submits that the Dy. Commissioner has correctly dropped the proceedings. He drew attention of the Bench to the agreement drawn between CIRIA-Italy and MMTCL (the appellant). According to Clause 6 of the agreement the appellants to pay 10% as commission on the final products sold directly by MMTCL. He also drew attention to the letter of intent between RIL and CIRIA, where the RIL had placed order with the CIRIA-Italy foreign supplier for the entire project. As part of the sale, portion of the project modules has to be supplied through the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the short issue is whether the impugned order is correct in setting aside the OIO or otherwise in so far as relates to valuation of imported goods. The period of import relates to Feb. 1995 to June 1995 pertaining to only six consignments. In the first round of litigation the adjudicating authority loaded 10% value which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded to the adjudicating authority to apply principles of natural justice. On perusal of the denevo OIO dated 02.05.2002, the adjudicating authority dealt the issue in detail on various clauses of Agreement and contract terms for the import under project import regulations and dropped t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been dealt in detail in the OIO passed by the adjudicating authority. We find that MMTCL is imported the goods under project imports and used the goods in the manufacture of final products which is called Z Blocks, and the same were supplied as per the original contract between to RIL CIRIA. We also find that as per clause (6) of agreement between CIRIA and MMTCL, appellants have to make payment of 10% as a commission if the final products directly sold. In the present case, it is clearly brought out in the OIO that there is no direct sale of finished goods involved. The LAA without going into the details of contract and without examining the facts straight away ordered for loading of 14.8%. Therefore we hold that loading of value or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
