9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erland. The adjudicating authority has held that respondent and supplier are related persons in as much as that as per agreement M/s Haesler is holding 8% equity in Man Aluminium, due to which the declared price was rejected and the price was further loaded. Aggrieved by such loading of the price, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority who after following due process of law allowed the appeal and set aside the Order-in-Original by recording as under. "I find from the records and as submitted by the appellants that the term of agreement in respect of the payment schedule was amended vide agreement dated 10.05.94. As per this agreement the payments to be made were 30% in advance 60% on FOB and the balance 10% on erecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... includible in the value of the capital goods. It is also well settled that mere holding of equity in the appellant company does not establish a relationship that has influenced the invoice value nor has any nexus been established." 4. Department has contested the said impugned order by on the following grounds of appeal. "The Order-in-Appeal appears to have erred in holding that the Agreement dated 25-03-1994 was amended by the minutes of meeting dated 10-05-94. The said Amendment contains the Minutes of the meeting held at Bombay between CHR. HAEUSLER and MAN ALUMINIUM LTD relates to certain changes incorporated in the Equipment and Technical Assistance Purchase Agreement dated 25-03-94 and provides for the "new payment terms." It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance of man hours will be charged by Haeusler to MAN at the rate of Swiss Francs 100/- per in an hour. This clearly indicates the US $ 45,00,000/- are for the Haeusler Equipment as mentioned at the end of clause IV of the said Agreement. The amount of US $ 85,000/- could not be considered as Erection & Commissioning charges on post-import and cannot be deducted from the Assessable Value of the goods machine of US $ 4,500,000/-. Hence this deduction in the B/E was made erroneously. The Commissioner (Appeals) has therefore erroneously allowed the deduction of US $ 85,000/- in the Invoice submitted along with B/E, which amount should actually be included as per the correct reasoning adduced in the top two paragraphs of page no. V of DC ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
