9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ination. The appellant M/s. Rithi Lightnin Mixers is a joint venture company with M/s Lightnin Mixers Ltd., UK each holding 50% shades in the appellant company. Appellant imported impellers, gear boxes manufactured exclusively by collaborators. They were also authorised use 'LIGTHNIN' trade mark. They imported component parts in SKD conditions for local assembly with manufactured components by them. The Order-in-Original observed as follows:- "I have carefully gone through the records of the case and various documents submitted certificate produced and random copies of invoices and Bills of entry furnished by the importer with written and oral submission. Since the Indian Company M/s Rathi Lightnin Mixers Private Limited is a joint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue under Rule 4(3). At the time before the lower authority the appellants did not submit any documents in spite of sufficient opportunity given to them by the lower authority. Other than additions under Rule 9 on account of royalty, because of Rule 4(3), the appellants are under obligation to demonstrate to the lower authority regarding acceptance of declared value and that the same conforms to test values. The appellants have not enclosed any documents in their defence. As per the respondents, while calculating royalty, value of imported component and local bought out components are excluded from selling price of finished products. The lower authority has not examined relevant provisions of the agreement to arrive at his conclusion. The or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It seems that this assertion relates to the sale price of the goods sold in India after import and manufacture by the appellant and it is not in respect of the imported goods. This becomes evident by the next assertion in the order of the adjudicating authority that the appellant get commission from the principal in the complete product sold by the principal India. Thus we find that the Order-in-Original is not speaking order so much as there is no material to back the assertion made in the said order. We find the Order-in-Appeal rightly points out that the lower authorities have not examined the relevant provisions of the agreement to arrive at the Conclusion. 5. In view of the above, we find merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
