9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (AR) ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 573/2004 MCH dated 22/09/2004 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai I. 2. When the matter was called out none appeared for the appellant. On perusal of records we find that the appeal could be disposed of in the absence of any representation from the appellant, accordingly we take up the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of transfer of technical information and know-how, the importer was required to pay the collaborator, a lump sum fees of USD 5,00,000/- and a running royalty of 4% of net sales subject to withholding tax if any on the product. As per the lower authority, the royalty payment is not related to the imported goods, and there is no condition of sale attached to the subject royalty payment. Hence roy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment where in payment of know-how fees and royalty are condition of the agreement. In view of the Supreme Court decisions in Essar Gujarat Ltd. 1996 (88) ELT 609 (SC) and State Bank of India vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, 2000 (115) ELT 597 (SC), both technical know-how/licence fee and royalty are clearly includible in value under Rule 9(1)(c) of the CVR, 1988 an appeal was filed before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the adjudicating authority are correct. The first appellate authority has not brought on record any evidence to indicate that there was restriction imposed on the appellant to procure the raw materials only from the parent concern. In the absence of any such evidence, we are of the considered view that the loading of the value of by the amount of royalty paid by appellant is not in consonance wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
