9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this submission also fails. With regard to the other aspects of design and validation fees, it is once again the grievance of the department that the respondent herein had not furnished the bill of material containing components / assemblies for these projects and the constituents of locally procured components etc. before the Adjudicating Authority but produced only before the Appellate Authority. Once again, we state that it is not the case of the department that the bill of material containing the list of component and other bills were not at all filed and what was filed was per se tainted with false documents. There is nothing that prevented the department from calling for these particulars and examine the genuineness of the documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue and respondent-importer filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority set aside the addition of value on the subject goods and rejected Revenue's appeal. Hence these appeals by Revenue. 2. Heard Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (A.R) for the appellant-Revenue and Shri P. Saravanan, Advocate for the respondent-importer. 3. The Ld. A.R appearing for Revenue contended that the Appellate Authority in the impugned order, instead of remanding the case back to the Lower Adjudicating Authority (SVB unit) has gone on merit of the case and decided the appeal in favour of the respondent-importer which is against Revenue's interest. He referred to para-12 of the OIA to submit that appellate authority havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... related to the imported goods and there should be a condition of sale. An answer to one of its questions in the questionnaire merely is not enough to order for addition. The SVB has to do the investigation and find out where the parameters for addition exist or not. Otherwise, there could be no reason or justification to order for addition of the same. 11. The payment towards Engineering Design and Development is in respect of W 201 plastic fuel tank assembly which is to be manufactured in India. The order in original should have considered the fact that what was to be imported is not W 201 plastic fuel tank assembly but the components for the same. Mls. Yapp India Automotives Systems P Limited. in its appeal has pleaded that many of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne installation fees etc. The contention of the department that based on their reply to the questionnaire, the Lower Adjudicating Authority passed an order holding that the said fees were addable to transaction value under Rule 10 (1) (c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 is in our view wholly unacceptable and unsustainable. The further submission of Revenue that the respondent found it convenient to furnish the agreement before Commissioner (Appeals) who instead of remanding the case back to Lower Adjudicating Authority for thorough examination has allowed the appeal in favour of the importer is also not acceptable for the reason that it is not the case of the department that the agreements were not furnished at all. The department coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
