TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) has also noted this fact that the invoices shown by the appellant during the hearing do not indicate that the difference in price is 55% uniformly. In majority of sales, the price to unrelated buyer was higher by 5.5% to 7.5%. - finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the difference in commercial levels, quantity levels, cost incurred by the seller (in this case respondent) have to be considered while examining the influence on price by the relationship between the supplier and the importer. Therefore, even if similar goods sold to the unrelated buyer are taken as the basis of value of impugned goods in terms of Valuation Rules 4 & 5, adjustments have to be made on account of such factors as stated in proviso to Rule 3 (3) (b) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplier to the importers after giving suitable discount. The suppliers also supply the goods to other unrelated customers in India from whom they charge higher prices than the price in the Global Pricelist by 10% to 30%. The contention of respondents is that the difference between the prices charged to third party unrelated buyers and the prices at which they received the goods is paid to them by their Principal as a commission. This commission is paid for the after sale issues such as warranty period servicing, repairing, and replacement of parts. Revenue built its case around a mail dt. 21.7.2006 to the respondent saying that all drives electronic or mechanical shall be supplied as per pricelist with 50% discount . The adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Commissioner A.R. CESTAT, Mumbai on 23.7.2015. According to this chart, the variation in prices is much less than 55% in most cases. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. On facts, we find the order of the adjudicating authority woefully inadequate. The Annexure 3 referred above clearly indicates that the difference in prices for the respondent and independent buyers is much less than 55% for most of the products. It is not at all brought forth in the adjudication order as to how the verification is taken as 55% uniformly. In fact, the decision of the adjudicating authority is an apology of an Order and is not a speaking Order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also noted this fact that the invoices shown by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Rules, which provide the legal basis of arriving at the correct assessable value. Nor do the grounds of appeal appreciate the situation correctly in these terms. The reliance placed by the Ld. AR on various judgments does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. a special discount on the price of a single machine was denied. In case of Metal and Alloys Industries the international prices of the same product imported were considered. However in the present case, the situation is of commission being given which is the difference between the prices to the appellant and the unrelated buyer for taking care of after sales service/promotion etc. We find no reason to reject the impugned order. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
