9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is engaged in the manufacture of mechanical control cables, transmission cables and window regulators. The Appellant also imports various inputs which is mostly imported goods from their group companies, including Hi-Lex Corporation, Japan (Hi-Lex Japan) for use in the manufacture of final products. 3. The appellant has not executed any agreement with overseas related entities for purchase of imported goods. The price of imported goods is determined based on the price list which in turn is based on the various factors such as cost of raw-materials and technology involved in their manufacture, manufacturing and general over rates and profit margin. The appellant has executed a License and Technical Assistance (LTA) Agreement dated Decembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the order of the ld. Adjudicating Authority and allowed departmental appeal and hence this appeal. 5. The appellant has preferred the appeal on the ground that the pricing mechanism has been repeatedly examined and consistently accepted by the Department vide order dated 2nd February, 2009 and 29th February, 2012 wherein the department has accepted the order and had not challenged the same. Having not done so, these orders and the valuation mechanism as adopted by the appellant attended in its finality and cannot be disturbed at this point of time without any changed circumstances. The Appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in case of CCE vs. E.I. Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. final order no. 53360/2017 dated 21st April 2007. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... morandum filed before the Commissioner (Appeal) and also submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has not examined the transaction between the appellant and their principle with respect to the NIDB data and balance sheet as explained in the impugned order. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the case records. 9. It is a fact, not disputed, that the Appellant has imported the goods from their principle (Hi-Lex Japan) for the manufacture of goods and sale thereof. This import had been affected since 2009 and 1998 when first such import was made in year and the transaction value was examined by the Special Value Branch of the Customs House. The Assistant Commissioner, SVB passed first order dated 2.01.2006 and thereafter revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended finality as there was no challenge in to those orders. After going through the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeal) has simply accepted the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in without giving any independent findings on the point received in the appeal. On the other hand we find that the lower Adjudicating Authority has dealt with the valuation of the imported by the Appellant as per Customs Valuation Rules after going through the LTA, and examining the affidavit filed by the Appellant. There is no application of NIDB data in the case where the issue is examination of adoption of valuation under Rules, 2(2) Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 Ipso-facto. For this we refer and rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
