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

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus Yapp India Automotive Systems P. Ltd.

2016 (7) TMI 883 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Validity of order of orders of Commissioner (appeal) in favor of assessee - assessee submitted the documents first time before the commissioner (appeals) - Valuation - import of goods - related parties - additions towards design and validation fees and towards machine Installation and Commission Support Charges - Revenue in appeal - Held that:- The department could have verified the genuineness of the agreements and other documents filed by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals). This .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce again, we state that it is not the case of the department that the bill of material containing the list of component and other bills were not at all filed and what was filed was per se tainted with false documents. There is nothing that prevented the department from calling for these particulars and examine the genuineness of the documents. - Appeal of the revenue rejected - Decided against the revenue. - Appeal Nos. C/40133-40134/2014 - Final Order No. 41155-41156/2016 - Dated:- 14-7-20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

testing, but also sourced critical and important components/parts that need to be assembled to the tanks. Since it was prima facie found that both importer (respondent) and the foreign supplier were related, the matter was referred to Special Valuation Branch with respect to acceptance of declared value for assessment. SVB vide their order dt. 20.5.2013 rejected the declared value of the imported goods under Rule 12 (1) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

's appeal. Hence these appeals by Revenue. 2. Heard Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (A.R) for the appellant-Revenue and Shri P. Saravanan, Advocate for the respondent-importer. 3. The Ld. A.R appearing for Revenue contended that the Appellate Authority in the impugned order, instead of remanding the case back to the Lower Adjudicating Authority (SVB unit) has gone on merit of the case and decided the appeal in favour of the respondent-importer which is against Revenue's interest. He referr .....

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 order, we find that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has analyzed the issue exhaustively and has given a detailed finding. The relevant paragraphs of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) are reproduced below :- "10. The order in original shows that the lower authority has acted on the reply to the question No.25 of the Standard Questionnaire which mentions about the payment of USD 274688 towards design and validation feeds and USD 33,000/- towards machine installation and commissioning 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

artment to prove that the amount it seeks to add should be related to the imported goods and there should be a condition of sale. An answer to one of its questions in the questionnaire merely is not enough to order for addition. The SVB has to do the investigation and find out where the parameters for addition exist or not. Otherwise, there could be no reason or justification to order for addition of the same. 11. The payment towards Engineering Design and Development is in respect of W 201 plas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l the importer appellant that raw materials/ components constituting only minor value is being sourced from the related supplier. paltry imports from the related suppliers, I view it is not necessary to go the whole hog of test values and comparing with the contemporaneous imports .. 12. In fact, the lower authority has not expressly ordered for acceptance of the invoice value for imports from the related suppliers. There is no finding in this regard. Thus it is obvious that he was silent on thi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and find out whether the parameters for addition did exist or not. The department has gone by the reply to the questionnaire wherein the importer failed to produce any agreement entered into between their group concerns for payment of design and validation fees, technical know-how fees and machine installation fees etc. The contention of the department that based on their reply to the questionnaire, the Lower Adjudicating Authority passed an order holding that the said fees were addable to tran .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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