TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany, it cannot be held that importer and supplier are related person - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue-appellant. - APPEAL NO. C/246/05, C/CO/215/05 - Order No.A/87569-87570/16/CB - Dated:- 28-4-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commr. (A.R.), for Appellant Shri S. Suryanarayanan, Advocate, for Respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 98/2004 (JNCH) dated 29.11.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II. The Revenue has also filed a stay petition for staying the operation of impugned order. Respondent-assessee has also filed a cross objection which is in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the price of the machineries under import. The appellants have also submitted that in the absence of mutuality or interest the transaction value supported by independent valuers i.e. SGS in this cannot be rejected; that in support of his claim submitted documentary evidence in accordance with the EXIM Policy of Government of India as enclosures to the Bills of Entry for the second hand machinery under import from VZS, he foreign supplier; that therefore the impugned order has been passed contrary to facts as they have demonstrated closed approximation of the declared value as required. I find that this fact has not been assailed by the lower authority nor any evidence has been adduced to show that the declared value not correct except to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in above reproduced) that there is no equity participation to the tune as had been recorded by the adjudicating authority. There is absolutely nothing on the record that findings of the first appellate authority were erroneous, we agree with the findings recorded by the first appellate authority that just because there is an equity participation in the importer-respondent company, it cannot be held that importer and supplier are related person. Our this view supported by the following decisions:- (i) Daewoo Motors India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2000 (115) ELT 489 (Tribunal) (ii) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Modi GBC Ltd. - 1999 (114) ELT 931 (Tribunal) (iii) Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Maruti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
