9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 4-7-2002 is : whether technical and installation fee amounting to Rs. 59 lacs was required to be loaded in the assess able value of a 20-Lane Bowling Alley equipment imported in October, 1998 by the assessee - Galaxy Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd.? 2. The .assessee imported 20-Lane Bowling Alley from M/s. AMF Bowling Inc. based in USA for installation in their premises situated at Phoenix Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. On 18-5-1999, a show cause notice was issued in which it was alleged that the assessee had grossly undervalued the said equipment by declaring the price at US $ 15000 CIF as against the normal price of US $ 30000 for a lane. According to the show cause notice, the assessee had disguised part of the cost o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of evading payment of customs duty: In the circumstances, the Adjudicating Authority held that the transaction value under Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 ("Customs Valuation Rules") cannot be taken and accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority invoked Rule 5(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules and called upon the assessee to pay duty on the price calculated at the rate of US $ 30000 x 20 + Rs. 1.41 lacs per lane as Installation Charges, which M/s. Capital Leisure Pvt. Ltd. had paid, amounting to Rs. 28.33 lacs. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Adjudicating Authority, the matter was carried in appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for 20-Lane Bowling Alley by the assessee. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the cost per lane at US $ 15000 was a proper negotiated price. In the circumstances, in our view, the matter is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Basant Industries (supra). Further, there is no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Department that the cost of the equipment was deliberately bifurcated and that the Technical and Installation Charges Agreement dated 20-8-1998 was a disguise to arrive at the true value of the import. In this connection we find that, the foreign supplier had its subsidiary in India; that subsidiary was M/s. AMF Bowling (I) Pvt. Ltd.. It is not the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and Installation services at Rs. 28.33 lacs which in the present case is Rs. 59 lacs. As stated, in the case of M/s. Capital Leisure the transaction was concurring 6-Lanes Bowling Alley, whereas here we have 20-Lanes In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal One cannot compare the impugned transaction with the transaction which M/s. AMF Bowling Inc., USA had with M/s. Capital Leisure Pvt. Ltd. We find no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the Department that the Technical and Installation charges was a disguise to cover the true cost of the equipment. There is no evidence of any flow-back or extra-consideration deflating the price and, therefore, there was no reason to include Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
