TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ading of the value of by the amount of royalty paid by the appellant is not in consonance with the law settled by the higher judicial fora. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - APPEAL No.C/553/2004 - ORDER No.A/87948-A/16/CB - Dated:- 26-4-2016 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) None for the appellant Shri M.K. Mall, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No: 94/2004-MCH dated 27/02/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - I. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. Since the matter is of 2004, we take up the appeal for disposal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of royalty to be decided on its own merit. The clauses of the agreement shows that proprietory information provided in form of know-how and purchase of proprietory equipment are related are conditions of sale. So the amount of royalty is to be includible in value of imported goods. As far as running royalty is concerned, the same are related to goods manufactured/sold in India, and not to be added. However, the lump-sum payment for supply of proprietory information need to be added under Rule 9. 7. In our considered view, the findings recorded by the first appellate authority seems to be erroneous for more than one reason. Firstly, we find that the Article 9 which is relied upon by the first appellate authority dealt with the purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct the appellant to purchase or procure raw materials only from the parent concern. The findings of adjudicating authority are correct. The first appellate authority has not brought on record any evidence to indicate that there was restriction imposed on the appellant to procure the raw materials only from the parent concern. In the absence of any such evidence, we are of the considered view that the loading of the value of by the amount of royalty paid by appellant is not in consonance with the law settled by the higher judicial fora. 9. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Operative part orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
