9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C Patel, Adv. PER : S K Gaule Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.9.2006 whereby the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the lower adjudicating authority's order enhancing the assessable value. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents imported a consignment of medical equipments form M/s. Sysmex Corporation, Japan in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he documents which were asked for by the lower adjudicating authority. Therefore, the enhancement of value by 50% is in order and the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any ground for not accepting the enhanced value. He has recorded in his order that the royalty is paid on 5% of total net sales of the goods manufactured in India and the lower authority has not given a finding how the same i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 (202) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) and the Tribunal's decision in the case of Modi Senator (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC (I&G), New Delhi- 2009(247) E.L.T. 313 (Tri-Del) which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC vs. Modi Senator(I) P. Ltd. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that, undisputedly, both the supplier and respondents are related pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igher price and that the Department has not made any effort to bring on record any evidence that identical or similar goods were imported by other importers at higher price. Therefore, in view of the clear position of law about the acceptance of the transaction value, the Customs authorities could not add the technical know-how fee in respect of the post-importation activities to the assessable va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he third party in both the companies i.e., the buyer and the seller, Rule 2(2)(iv) of the erstwhile Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 could not be applied. This decision was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. In these circumstances. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order-in-appeal. The same is upheld and the Revenue's appeal which is devoid of any merit is dismissed. (Dictated an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
