9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TG. Apart from the fact that the agreement for supply of parts/components was entered into much earlier to the technical licence fee agreement, we find that the technical licence fee was payable in relation to WTG manufactured in India by the appellant and not in respect of parts/components imported by the appellant. Licence fee is not payable as a condition of sale of the imported goods. Therefore, according to us, both the licence fee would not satisfy the required conditions under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 for being added while assessing the value of the imported goods. We had occasion to consider a similar issue in M/s. Mando Brake Systems India Ltd. v. CC, [ 2003 (9) TMI 222 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] where we have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal vide its order dated 19-4-2002 set aside the orders impugned and remanded the matter for de novo consideration. On remand the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the fee of 6000 DKK for technical assistance which was rendered for servicing of WTG as well as the lump sum of 2,60,000 DKK payable towards technical know-how under the agreement are relatable to the imports and would be addable under Rule 9(1)(c). 2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that neither fee for technical assistance in relation to servicing of WTG nor the lump sum payable towards technical know-how would qualify as amounts to be added in terms of Rule 9(1)(c). In order to be covered by Rule 9(1)(c) the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnai - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 333 M/s. S.D. Technical Service v. CC, New Delhi - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 274 (Tri.-LB) Panalfa Dongwon India Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 287 (Tri.-LB) M/s. Polar Marmo Agglomerates Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 283 Tata Timken Ltd. v. CC, Calcutta - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 772 3. Learned DR contended that there is no error in the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) in coming to the conclusion that the above two amounts are liable to be added under Rule 9(1)(c). 4. Learned Commissioner takes the view that since the parts/components imported from foreign supplier are used in the manufacture of WTG, technical know-how fee which is relatable basically to the assistance provided by the foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
