9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were required to pay M/s. Rank Xerox a lumpsum fee of Rs. 87.87 lacs as engineering fee for ancillary development and royalty at the rate of 5% on the net ex-factory price minus the cost of imported components etc. towards the technical assistance and since the respondents had been permitted to use the trade-mark name 'Xerox', the invoice value of the goods imported by the respondents from their foreign collaborator (M/s. Rank Xerox)/their associates was proposed to be loaded by 2% under Rule 8 (relating to best judgment assessment) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 read with Section 14(l)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents gave their reply. The Assistant Collector was not satisfied and by issue of his further letters on 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Rank Xerox separately for all services including testing and inspection supplied by them. The Learned Representative of the department stated that both the above documents came into existence after the Assistant Collector had already passed the Order-in-Original on 12.8.1986 and yet the Collector (Appeals) straightaway relied on them without giving opportunity to the department to examine them and rebut them and without passing a reasoned order for admission of the additional evidence as specifically required in Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The Learned Representative of the department suggested that since the additional evidence related to factual aspect, it would be preferable to remand the matter to the Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents was also organised by M/s. Rank Xerox and M/s. Rank Xerox rendered inspection and testing services for the machinery. But the Collector (Appeals) totally set aside the loading for capital equipment and machinery on the basis of the additional evidence at item (ii) of paragraph 2 above. This had caused substantial prejudice to the department's case and the Collector (Appeals) passed his order without giving the department a chance to examine and counter the additional evidence. During the arguments before us both sides also referred to Tribunal's order in the case of Collector of Customs v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [1987 (28) E.L.T. 390 (Tribunal)] which, they stated, was on issues similar to those involved in the present case. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
