9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t aside all orders based on that will have to be set aside. Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No. 01097 of 2010 - FINAL ORDER No. 20551 /2023 - Dated:- 2-6-2023 - HON'BLE DR. D. M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellants : Mrs. Neetu James, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. K.A. Jathin, Dy. Com. (AR) ORDER Per R. BHAGYA DEVI : This appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.29/2010 dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are importers of various automation technology equipment, frequency converters, High and Low voltage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the appeals of the appellant. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mrs. Neetu James, Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that issue, in appellant s own case for the Bills of Entry filed at Mumbai Customs based on the same set of agreements, has now been settled in their favour by the Tribunal s Final Order No. A/672/2012-WZB dated 30.10.2012 as reported at 2013 (288) E.L.T.996 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein it was held that the amount paid towards royalty should not be loaded in the transaction value in as much as payment of royalty is not a condition for sale in the instant case. 4.1 Learned counsel submits that the SVB Mumbai s order dated 19.6.2008 was appealed against to the Commissioner (A), Mumbai by the appellants and Commissioner (A) vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons made from the appellant, the SVB order dated 19.6.2008 has been set aside and the present issue has now been settled in their favour by the Tribunal s Final Order dated 3010.2012 cited supra. 7.2 For the purpose of clarity, the table below is formulated to explain the sequence of the orders passed for the Bills of Entry filed against imports made at Mumbai Customs: Sl. No. Order No. Date Passed by Remarks 1 Order-in-Review No.95/AC/SVB/BR/2008-09 19.6.2008 Commissioner of Customs (Imports), GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai Ordered to load the specified percent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the licence agreement entered into by the appellant with the foreign collaborator. From the agreement, it is seen that the foreign collaborator (Licensor) grants the Licensee (the appellant) a non-exclusive, non-permissible license technology to manufacture/have manufactured and to sell or otherwise to supply the licenced products. The licenced products have been defined as products and any other articles manufactured making use of any of the licence technology identified in the agreements. In consideration thereof the appellant has to pay the royalty to the Licensor as the percentage of the net sale price of the licence products in the Indian market. Nowhere in the agreement is there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not find any nexus between the import of components and the payment of royalty for the technical know-how. 7. In the case before us, there is no evidence which has been produced before us by the department indicating that the payment of royalty is a condition for the sale of imported components or it is relatable to the imported components. In the absence of such a nexus, we are unable to agree with the contention of the Revenue that the royalty amount is to be added with the transaction value to arrive at the assessable value of the goods in importation. 8. The present issue in the impugned order deals with the 10 agreements based on which the value has been loaded. Since the original Mumbai SVB order dated 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
