9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t duties were paid by REV. The OIO acknowledges that SAP India paid duties too. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the Appellant is an importer at all, whether the Appellant in fact paid the sums of Rs.31,50,000 to REV, and whether the duties paid by REV/ SAP India would result in the nullification of the liability of the Appellant. It is deemed appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Adjudicating Authority for consideration afresh on these points. The findings on these points, as also on the question of the payment of duties by REV (particularly considering that those duties were paid only in 2013 in respect of an import in 2006) will also have a bearing on the correctness of the invocation of the extended period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Data Processing P. Ltd. ( SAP India ). Under clause 2.1 of this Agreement, REV secured a license to use software, documentation, and other proprietary information from SAP India. The Agreement further stipulates that an affiliate as defined therein may use such software. Exhibit B to the Agreement lists various affiliates of REV including the Appellant. Therefore, effectively, the Agreement also permitted the Appellant to use the software under consideration. However, the evidence on the record is not clear as to what software was actually the subject matter of the Agreement. Clause 1.10 of the Agreement stipulates that all software specified and agreed upon in the appendeix to that Agreement shall constitute the software which is the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on September 1, 2006. The Order--in--Original therefore finds that the license fee paid by the Appellant is in respect of the import of SAP software from SAP AG. 6. In support of the finding that the Appellant paid a license fee of Rs.31,50,000/-- to SAP India, the OIO places reliance on invoice number 6071009295 dated July 24, 2006. Having recorded these and other findings, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the declared value of Rs.90/--, that is 1.5, re--determined the value at Rs.32,17,292/--, confiscated the software allegedly imported by the appellant by means of the aforesaid Bill of Entry and demanded consequent duty and penalties. 7. This order was appealed in first appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that if the contention th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an assignment of the Agreement from REV to the Appellant. The liability for Customs duty, without doubt, lies in the hands of the importer. (iii) Third, so far as the allegation in the OIO that a payment of Rs.31,50,000/-- was made by the appellant, it is the appellant s contention that the invoice for this sum raised by SAP India was cancelled. We find that there is, on the record, a document at page 141 of the Memorandum of Appeal titled cancellation No. 6071009296 . It is the appellant s contention that this document represents the cancellation of the invoice at page 140. Both these documents are rather similar to each other. In fact, the cancellation document contains the following sentence: in accordance with the above order, we in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
