9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e commodities. They imported various parts of computer printers including the impugned goods namely shuttle assembly imported under Bill of Entry dated 21st January 2003. The Revenue conducted certain investigations and found that the shuttle assembly is not entitled for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 as the said assembly had many built in Populated Printed Circuit Boards (PPCB) and as per the explanation given in Sl. No. 276 of the said Notification, the exemption will not be available in the case of an assembly which includes PPCBs. It was further noticed that the appellants paid royalty on the printers manufactured by them in terms of the agreement entered with the foreign lic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is a condition of sale of the impugned goods namely shuttle assembly. (iii) Relying on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Customs v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [1987 (28) E.L.T. 390 (T)] upheld by the Apex Court, the learned Advocate contended that any consideration paid under technical agreement for manufacturing goods in India and importing of critical components (shuttle assembly in this case) under the said agreement would not by itself lead to conclusion that the payment of such consideration is a condition for sale and therefore, is liable to be included in the transaction of such imported components unless it is clearly proved that the payment of such royalty has a nexus with the import of the said compo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts have paid any other amount over and above the declared prices to the foreign supplier. (ix) It is not the case of the Department that the relationship between the parties had influenced the price in respect of the consignment under question. (x) The value of US$ 612 adopted by the Commissioner is not comparable inasmuch as there is a gap of more than a month in respect of the consignment under comparison and also the commercial levels. (xi) Since there is no element of fraud or suppression or mis-declaration imposition of penalty under Section 114A is not correct. (xii) The demand of differential duty arose only on account of the difference of opinion on the enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Section 114A prescribed the maximum penalty to be imposed and the quantum of penalty depends upon the totality of facts and circumstances of the case. (1) State of M.P. and Others v. Bharat Heavy Electricals [1998 (99) E.L.T. 33 (S.C.) = (1998 (25) RLT 327 (S.C.) (2) Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. UOI [1999 (112) E.L.T. 772 (S.C.)] (3) Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 (T) = 1999 (35) RLT 9 (CEGAT)] (4) Bihar Ispat Udyog v. CCE, Jamshedpur [2001 (130) E.L.T. 231 (T)] (5) CCE, Meerut v. Kuchhal Udyog [2000 (115) E.L.T. 778 (T)]. (xviii) In view of the bona fide i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in India. However, in view of the fact that the printers should necessarily have shuttle assembly as one of the components and since the shuttle assemblies have necessarily to be imported from the foreign supplier, we can clearly discern the nexus between the payment of royalty and the import of shuttle assembly. In other words, the shuttle assembly will not be supplied to the appellant unless he makes use of them in the manufacture of printers for which royalty has to be paid. Therefore, one can safely come to the conclusion that payment of royalty is a condition of sale of the imported goods namely shuttle assemblies. The Original Authority has come to this finding after going through the relevant provisions of the agreement between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above amount represents the differential duty on account of denial of exemption Notification 21/2002 dated 1-3-2002 and also on a account of inclusion of royalty in the price of the imported goods namely shuttle assembly. However, the total duty confirmed was only Rs. 99,66,131/-. Since the entire duty demand has been paid before the issue of show cause notice, in terms of the decided case laws, penalty under 114A of the Customs Act is not leviable. 10. Summing up, we hold that the royalty is includible in the assessable value of the impugned goods and uphold the valuation adopted by the Adjudicating authority. However we set aside the penalty under Section 114A. The redemption fine is upheld. The appeal is disposed of in the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
