TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AR) for Appellant Shri M.L. Grover, Advocate for Respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 69/2004 (JNCH) dated 28.12.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The facts of the case are that a case against the respondent was registered in GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai in March, 1999. A show-cause notice was issued to them on 5.6.2000 proposing enhancement of value by 20% as the relationship appeared to have been influenced the price of the goods. It was contended that the respondent is a Joint Venture company in which the foreign collaborator M/s Verbatim Corporation, USA has an equity participation of 40%. In the adjudication, it was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not related person to the foreign supplier. It is also incorrect to say that the foreign supplier is controlling the respondent. He cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd. 2001 (134) ELT 321 (SC) and the Tribunal s order in the case of Initiating Explosives Systems (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata 2002 (150) ELT 195 (Tri-Kol). According to which if the foreign supplier is holding less than 50% equity, the Indian company cannot be held as related person. 4.1 As regards the issue of addition of technical knowhow fee of one lakh US Dollor, he submits that the adjudicating authority has clearly held in the findings that the one lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order has stated that the order is based on various written and oral submissions by the importer , this implies that the appellants have indeed made some written and oral submissions. The appellants besides other grounds have submitted that this is contrary to the finding in the impugned order that the appellants neither made any written submissions nor did they attend personal hearing. The appellants have cited several judgments in their favour to say that merely because the USA company held 40% of equity in the appellants company it cannot be held to be related. They further submitted that the lower authority has without any evidence of any influence of the foreign collaborator, has erroneously ordered for the value to be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
