9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
1. Inclusion of technical know-how and license fee in the assessable value of imported capital goods. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal against the Customs authorities' decision to include the technical know-how and license fee of Rs. 25 Lakhs in the transaction value of certain imported capital goods, as per Rule 9(1)(c) of Customs and Valuation Rules, 1988. The appellant argued that the amount was for carrying on business in India and selling products, not for purchasing capital goods specifically from a certain manufacturer. The agreement with Stylus Industries focused on providing technical documentation, know-how, and training for the production of goods. The appellant cited previous decisions to support the argument that consideration for manufacturing goods and training should not be part of the assessable value. The Revenue, represented by the SDR, contended that the amount should be included in the assessable value. However, upon reviewing the agreement between the appellant and Stylus Industries, the Tribunal found that the Rs. 25 Lakhs were for technical know-how provision and related services, not for the capital goods imported by the appellant. The agreement aimed at conducting business and selling goods in India, with no indication that the amount was for the imported capital goods. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Customs authorities' decision to add Rs. 25 Lakhs to the value of capital goods was not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. This judgment clarifies the distinction between consideration for technical know-how and license fees in the context of imported capital goods. It emphasizes the importance of analyzing the specific terms of agreements to determine the nature of payments and their relevance to the assessable value. The decision provides guidance on assessing the inclusion of non-directly related fees in the valuation of imported goods, ensuring compliance with Customs and Valuation Rules.
|
