Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Beckhoff Automation Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Mumbai

2015 (10) TMI 205 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Valuation - Related person - Determination of transactional value - Held that:- Both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not passed a well reasoned order. There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant is related to the supplier (Principal) being a 100% subsidiary of the supplier. Rule 3 of the Valuation Rules provides for discarding the invoice price if there is evidence that the relationship between the supplier and the importer has influenced the price. The fact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X


The commission received by the appellant to the extent of 15% over the price at which Inteltek was importing the goods is also explained by them. This is a normal commercial practice. Unfortunately, neither the adjudicating authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have followed the legal provisions and judicial pronouncements in rejecting the transaction value declared by the appellant. They have not proceeded sequentially through the Valuation Rules in determining the value. The whole cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-2015 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Bharat B. Raichandani, Advocate with Shri Mihir Deshmukh, Advocate, Shri Abhijit Singh, Advocate and Shri Omkar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: P.S. Pruthi The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he upheld the adjudicating authority s decision holding that duty i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2(2) of the Valuation Rules. The appellants were receiving the imported goods at a discount of 35% to 45% on the List price of the Principal. The appellant submitted evidence to the effect that an independent dealer by the name of M/s Inteltek Automation Pvt. Ltd. was receiving the same goods from the same supplier at a discount of 30% to 35%. The difference of 5% to 10% in the discount received by the appellant and M/s Inteltek Automation Pvt. Ltd. was explained by the learned Counsel as being .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the description of the goods in the two cases appears to vary. 2.1 The adjudicating authority did not accept the contention of the appellant and ordered that the supplier s List price be accepted as a transaction value under Rule 3 of the Valuation Rules and also ordered for extra duty deposit of 1% on the expiry of three years period of the SVB order, if no review order is passed after three years. The Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the order of adjudicating authority stated that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellant. Further, it is also recorded by him that the invoice produced by the appellant of M/s Inteltek Automation Pvt. Ltd. actually pertains to the import made by their groups/companies/distributors. He further mentioned that the appellant used to get monthly fee of 5000 Euros for the services rendered on account of trade show and seminar participation and other tasks. 3. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 4. At the outset, we may mention that both the adjudicating authori .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alue in the List price. There is no evidence whatsoever forthcoming from the record that the relationship has influenced the price. Mere passing of discount by the supplier to the importer does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the discount has been passed on account of the relationship. The appellant have explained that the discount was also given to an independent dealer. Further, it was also explained that the difference between the discount to the appellant and to the independent dea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version