GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 1331 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2015 (11) TMI 1331 - CESTAT CHENNAI - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 1189 (Tri. - Chennai) - Valuation - Demand of differential duty - whether the impugned order is correct in setting aside the OIO or otherwise in so far as relates to valuation of imported goods - Held that:- Lower appellate authority in her order nowhere discussed and rebutted as to how the findings of the adjudicating authority was not acceptable instead as per straightaway came to the conclusion that the payment made as per the agreement .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t imports and used the goods in the manufacture of final products which is called Z Blocks, and the same were supplied as per the original contract between to RIL & CIRIA. We also find that as per clause (6) of agreement between CIRIA and MMTCL, appellants have to make payment of 10% as a commission if the final products directly sold. In the present case, it is clearly brought out in the OIO that there is no direct sale of finished goods involved. The LAA without going into the details of contr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

against the Commissioner (Appeals) Order dated 30.06.2003. 2. The brief facts of the case relates to valuation of imported goods by the appellant under project imports. The appellant was registered with customs for import of goods under project imports for supply to the new Naptha Cracker Project setup by the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). The appellants imported metallic Cartons and Empty Bent Cartons under six Bills of Entry during the period16.02.1995 to 27.06.1995 for manufacture of fina .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the appellant reiterated the finding of the adjudicating authority dated 02.02.2002 and submits that the Dy. Commissioner has correctly dropped the proceedings. He drew attention of the Bench to the agreement drawn between CIRIA-Italy and MMTCL (the appellant). According to Clause 6 of the agreement the appellants to pay 10% as commission on the final products sold directly by MMTCL. He also drew attention to the letter of intent between RIL and CIRIA, where the RIL had placed order with 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

pped the proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed any of the issues and findings of the OIO as to how the order is not acceptable instead by relying Rule 9(1) (e) of CVR, he ordered for addition of 10% on the invoice value, merely stated that there is Technical knowhow fee paid. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) not only set aside the order without giving any detailed findings and also enhanced loading to 14.8%. Whereas in the SCN only 10% was proposed. In suppo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d out the cost of the final product i.e., Z Block and correctly loaded 14.8% and also directed the authority to finalize the provisional assessment. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the short issue is whether the impugned order is correct in setting aside the OIO or otherwise in so far as relates to valuation of imported goods. The period of import relates to Feb. 1995 to June 1995 pertaining to only six consignments. In the first round of litigation th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rebutted as to how the findings of the adjudicating authority was not acceptable instead as per straightaway came to the conclusion that the payment made as per the agreement are to be added to the value of the imported goods as there must be clear cut evidence to show the know how fee is a condition of sale of goods. Whereas we find that the original authority has examined the contract agreement between CIRIA and the appellant. We perused the contract agreement dated 11.02.1994, between CIRIA S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version