TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment of Beta tape masters imported by the appellant, M/s Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, (MSM in short) during June 2007 to December, 2007 through courier import facility by including a value of Rs. 19,76,02,857/- in the value of the said beta tape masters under the provisions of Rule 10 (1) (c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR in short) and has demanded a differential customs duty of Rs. 4,82,54,618/- along with interest thereon under the provisions of Section 28 and 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty under section 114A of the said Customs Act by holding that the said goods are liable to confiscation under the provisions of Sections 111(m) of the said Customs Act. Aggrieved of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the impugned order confirming the proposals in the show cause notice and imposing penalties. Hence the appeal before us. When the case was listed for hearing on 3-6-2014, it was directed by this Tribunal that the stay and appeal be heard together. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:- (a) There are two clearly distinguishable transactions that take place under the Service Agreement and the Distribution Agreement. Under the service agreement, the appellant provides certain services to the foreign entity and under the distribution agreement, the appellant provides certain services under the Downlinking Policy of the information & Broadcasting Ministry which are deemed as taxable service on which the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice category of 'broadcasting services' which was the subject matter of adjudication in Order No. 14/ST/KKS/2011 dated 5-5-2011 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai. The distribution fee paid to the foreign broadcasters was the subject matter of dispute in the said order and the Service Tax Commissioner held that since the appellant has paid service tax on the broadcasting services on the total consideration received, there is no need to tax the distribution fee remitted to the foreign broadcasters once again as the same is already included in the value of taxable service or broadcasting service. (e) The ld. Counsel also refers to letter dated 28-12-2007 written by the appellant to the Standard Chartered Bank for remittan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the foreign entity, the appellant has undertaken the distribution activities and remitted the consideration to the foreign entity. The said activity and the remittance made therefore has no relation or connection with the import of digi-beta tapes and hence, the distribution fee remitted cannot form part of the taxable value of the digi-beta tapes imported. Accordingly the ld. Counsel for the appellant pleads for allowing the appeals. 4. The ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue re-iterates the findings of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. He contends that the distribution fee paid has an integral nexus to the import of digi-beta tapes and the remittance made is a condition of sale of the goods impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venues during the period 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004 and 75% of the gross revenue collected for the remainder of the agreement period which extended upto March, 2012. Thus the payment of distribution fees was for acquiring non-exclusive rights for satellite delivered, advertiser supported, television service. Thus the payment was made for the rights to distribute a service and has nothing to do with the goods imported by the appellant from the foreign entity. The letter dated 28-12-2007 addressed to the Standard Chartered Bank also make it clear that the amount of Rs. 19,76,02,857/- remitted was towards the distribution fees required to be remitted in terms of the Distribution Agreement. The Chartered Accountant's certificate dated 28-12-2007....