9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage. Accordingly, after allowing this application for out-of-turn hearing and disposing of the stay application, we proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. The appellants had imported components for automotive lighting equipments from a Japanese company viz. M/s. Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. They cleared the goods on payment of duty, without including in the assessable value the technical know-how fee paid by them to the supplier under a technical licence agreement dated 24-11-95. Under the said agreement, the appellants had been licensed by the Japanese company to manufacture certain automotive lighting equipments (referred to as 'contract products') in India by making use of the latter's technical know-how and assistance. Article 2 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding that the technical licence fee paid by them to the Japanese company was addable to the transaction value under Rule 9(1)(c). Hence the present appeal. 3. Ld. counsel submits that there was no relation whatsoever between the imported goods and payment of the technical licence fee. The fee was paid for technical know-how and assistance for the manufacture of automotive lighting equipments in India. Its nexus was with a post-import activity. Further, it was not a condition of sale of the imported goods that the appellants should make use of the supplier's technical know-how only and should pay the above fee to the latter. On these facts, it is submitted, the above fee was not to be included in the assessable value of the imported goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1394 to 1403/07 dated 15-11-07 [2008 (224) E.L.T. 439 (Tribunal)] in the case of M/s. HSI Automotive Ltd. & Others v. CC, Chennai. In the said final order, we considered all the recent decisions of the Apex Court on similar issues. 4. We have heard ld. JCDR, who submits that he is not prepared to argue in the appeal. He has suggested that the appeal be heard on a later date. We have not acceded to this suggestion inasmuch as, on the facts presented before us, we have found that the appeal itself can be finally disposed of, now, in view of binding precedent. Hence this order. 5. Following the case law cited before us by ld. counsel as well as our recent final order dated 15-11-07, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
