9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udability of fee paid to the foreign collaborator in terms of technical collaboration agreement in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules - Held that: - rule 9 relates to the supply of engineering, development, art work, design work and plans and sketches, etc. by the buyer to the supplier. In the instant case, it is the supplier who has sent the technical know-how to the buyers. Thus, Rule 9 (1) (b) (iv) has been wrongly invoked in this case. We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for deciding the issue afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellants - appeal disposed off - matter remanded back. - Appeal No. C/622 & 651/05 - A/94281-94282/16/CB - Dated:- 5-12-2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of technical know-how mere import of parts and components would be of no use to the appellants. It was argued before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the finished products can only be manufactured according to the design, specifications and technology developed by and patented by the foreign collaborator. It was argued before the Commissioner (Appeals) that in order to produce such goods in India, the appellant had to have licence rights and technical information from the collaborator. On the basis of above, it was argued that the appellant have not only to pay the price of goods imported but also the fees for technical know-how for obtaining technology and production licence and patent rights and therefore, these appeals are related to im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns to the invoice value of the imports. It was argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Essar Gujarat Ltd. (supra). It was also argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any ground for deffering with the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. 1995 (76) ELT 481 (SC) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. 1987 (28) ELT 390 (Tri). It was argued that Revenue has not proved that the transaction with the foreign supplier is not at arm s length. It was argued that they had relied on the large number of judgments in their favour and none of them have been discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been examined in terms of Sub-rule 9 (1) (c) as agreement has been examined with respect to the condition of sale of goods. Revenue has challenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking remand of the case. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to add certain amounts to the transaction value invoking Rule 9 (1) (b) (iv) and 9 (1) (d) (iv). It is seen that there is no Rule 9 (1) (d) (iv) in the said rules. Rule 9 (1) (b) (iv) reads as follows: 9. Cost of services (1) In determining the transaction value, there shall be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods (b) the value, apportioned as appropriate of the following goods and services where supplied directly or indirectly by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
