TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oot of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, being an authority, which is empowered to deal with the issues, of both, fact and law, the error, if any, can be corrected by way of an appeal remedy. Appeal dismissed, being not maintainable. - Writ Petition No. 16695 of 2016 and W. M. P. Nos. 14425 and 15555 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. C. Saravanan For the Respondents : Ms. R. Hemalatha ORDER ( Order of the Court was made by Rajiv Shakdher, J. ) 1. This is a Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, against the judgment and order dated 08.03.2016, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raph 30 of the impugned judgment, to the effect, that the Original Authority should take into consideration the outcome of the investigation proceedings initiated by DRI, while proceeding the issue at hand, queers the pitch. 3.1. Mr.Saravanan says that the Writ Petitioner has no difficulty in joining the remand proceedings. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Writ Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that parallel proceedings have been initiated with respect to the same transaction, by the DRI. 4. We may only indicate that it is not disputed by Mr.Saravanan that the DRI has issued a Show Cause Notice dated 08.12.2016 (in short, the 'SCN') and that, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, investig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on 04.02.2011. The efficacy of the second order came to an end, admittedly, on 08.02.2014. 6.3. As alluded to above, these orders continued to accept the declared invoice values as transaction value , under Rule 3(3)(a) of the Custom Valuation Rules, 2007 (in short, the '2007 Valuation Rules'). 6.4. It may only be noted that the Rules, which obtained prior to the 2007 Valuation Rules, were the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 (in short, the '1988 Valuation Rules'). Therefore, the corresponding provision, under which, such proceedings were conducted would be, Rule 4(3)(a) of the 1988 Valuation Rules. 6.5. As adverted to above, these orders were passed subject to conditions. One of the conditions, which is contained i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;IP'), effective from 01.07.2006, that it is U.S. holding company. 7.1. We are told that the IP agreement of 2006 was amended on 16.12.2009, whereby, inter alia, the Writ Petitioner undertook the obligation to pay royalties to its U.S. holding company, with effect from 01.07.2009, an obligation, which did not obtain, according to the Writ Petitioner, in the original agreement dated 01.07.2006. 8. This aspect of the matter came to fore when the second review order of SVB dated 04.02.2011 was passed. Thereafter, it came to the conclusion that since, the payment of royalty was not related to the imported goods and given the fact that it was not a condition of sale, no additions were warranted to the invoice price of imported goods u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Writ Petitioner, with effect from 01.07.2009 should be factored in the transaction value of the goods, under Rule 10(1)(c) of the 2007 Rules. 10.2. It is, therefore, the learned counsel's submission that the remand directions are beyond the scope of the appeal. 11. Ms.Hemalatha, on the other hand, has submitted, in reply, that these are issues, which can be sorted out, in case, the Writ Petitioner is aggrieved, by way of an appeal, which will have to be preferred before an appropriate forum, which, in this case, would be the Supreme Court. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records placed before us. 13. The broad facts and circumstances adverted to above by us are not in dispute. Clearly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or certiorari but are binding until reversed on appeal. Where a quasi-judicial authority has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it does not lose its jurisdiction by coming to a wrong conclusion whether it is wrong in law or in fact. The question, whether a tribunal has jurisdiction depends not on the truth or falsehood of the facts into which it has to enquire, or upon the correctness of its findings on these facts, but upon their nature, and it is determinable at the commencement, not at the conclusion, of the inquiry'. (Rex v. Bolten [1841] I Q.B. 66. Thus, a tribunal empowered to determine claims for compensation for loss of office has jurisdiction to determine all questions of law and fact relating to the measure of compensation and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
