9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority 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 with the law settled by the higher judicial fora. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. C/1093/2004 - Final Order No. A/85634/2016-WZB/CB - Dated:- 8-1-2016 - M V Ravindran, Member (J) And C J Mathew, Member (T) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri D K Sinha, Asstt Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irrespective of source of procurement including freight, insurance and customs duties, etc. As per the importer they are now importing raw materials and no capital goods have been imported by them. As per the adjudicating authority, the said lump-sum payment and royalty is not related to the imported goods and hence not covered under Rule 9 of CVR, 1988. Holding so, declared transaction value was accepted by him under Rule, 8 of CVR, 1988. The said order was examined by Commissioner (Import), in review, in which it is held that the lower authority while accepting the transaction value under Rule 4(3) of CVR, 1988, has ignored that it is mandatory to make addition under Rule 9 of technical know-how fees /royalty paid by Importer to Collabor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the finished goods to be manufactured by the appellant in their factory from the technical know-how received from parent concern. The said agreement does not talk about or restrict the appellant to purchase or procure raw materials only from the parent concern. The findings of 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 with the law settled by the higher judicial fora. 7. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
