9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ology equipment, frequency converters, High and Low voltage products, etc., from related and non-related parties located throughout the world and have filed 100 Nos. of Bills of Entry. The dispute is confined to the valuation of goods imported from few related parties of the appellant wherein the Special Valuation Branch (SVB), Mumbai vide order dated 19.6.2008 after verification of 24 agreements entered into by the appellant with their different entities, ordered loading of the amounts paid as royalty in terms of 10 agreements. For 14 agreements, the transaction value was accepted by the SVB. Based on this SVB order dated 19.06.2008, the Original Authority had loaded the assessable value with the amounts paid as royalty in respect of impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (A), Mumbai by the appellants and Commissioner (A) vide order dated 2.1.2009 remanded the matter to the Original Authority to consider all their submissions and pass a fresh order. Aggrieved by this order, Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 21.07.2009 ordered the Commissioner (A) to pass a fresh order on merits. Based on the above order, the Commissioner (A), Mumbai vide order dated 25.03.2011 upheld the assessment order. Aggrieved by this order dated 25.3.2011 of Commissioner (A), Mumbai, the appellant filed an appeal before Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 30.12.2012 allowed the appeal of the appellant. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 2.1.2009 Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, Mumbai. Remanded the appeal Original Authority to pass a fresh speaking order. 3 Tribunal Final Order No.A/180/09/CSTB/C.II & 282/09/CSTB/C.II (Appeal Filed by Department) 21.7.2009 CESTAT, Mumbai Remanded the issue to Commissioner (A), Mumbai to pass fresh an order by setting aside the remand order of the Commissioner (A). 4 Order-in-Appeal (Denovo) No.112/MCH/AC/SVB/2011 25.3.2011 Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Customs House, Mumbai. Upheld the SBV order dated 19.6.2008 at Sl.No.1 5 Tribunal Final Order No.A/673/2012-WZB (Appeal filed by the appellant) 2013 30.10.2012 CESTAT, Mumbai Decided the issue in favour of the appellant wherein it had held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellant is liable to pay royalty to the foreign collaborator even when the appellant imports the components from anybody else and do not at all import the components from the foreign collaborator. Thus, there is no nexus between the royalty payment and the import of components. 6.1 In respect of only 3 agreements, we find that there is a clause relating to purchases which has been reproduced above. As per the said clause, there is no condition that the appellant should purchase the components from the collaborator. The said agreement merely says that the licensee should give preference when purchasing any parts or components of the Contract Products not manufactured by the licensee, if the same meets all the specification required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
