9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Malhotra, Adv. Mr Ritesh Kumar, Adv. Mr B Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr Vikram Nankani, Sr. Adv. Mr Alok Yadav, Adv. Mr Somnath Shukla, Adv. Mr Harish Pandey, AOR Mr Udit Jain, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr V Lakshmikumaran, Adv. Mr M P Devanath, AOR Mrs L Charanaya, Adv. Mr Vivek Sharma, Adv. Mr S Vasudevan, Adv. Mr Rachit Jain, Adv. Ms Hemant Bajaj, Adv. Mr Aman D, Adv. Mrs Disha Jain, Adv. Mr R Ram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted. The bill of entry showing the aforesaid invoice value was filed. The Customs Authorities, however, wanted to load this price with the consideration that was agreed for Licence Agreement as well as Basic Engineering, Training and Technical Services Agreement. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, after issuing show cause notice, held that the payments made in the other two agreements need no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal (CESTAT) by the impugned judgment. This is how the Department has preferred the present appeal against the order of the CESTAT. On going through the order of the CESTAT, it becomes clear that the CESTAT has gone into the various provisions of the three agreements and has come to the conclusion that neither the fees paid under the Licence Agreement nor under the Basic Engineering, Trainin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the agreement was signed with OEC constituted only 16% of the total value. On these facts, we are of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Essar Steel Ltd. [Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2004] decided on 13th April, 2015. For all these reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so find that all these agreements pertained to rendering of services which are post import. Therefore, this case is also squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Essar Steel Ltd. [Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2004] decided on 13th April, 2015. The Tribunal, however, in the instant case, took a different view, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
