TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. Shri J.P. Gregory, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - There are two applications before us, both filed by the appellants, one for stay of operation of the impugned order and the other for out-of-turn disposal of the appeal. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(c) of the said Rules and (d) the pending provisional assessment should be finalized accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter held against the assessee. The decision of the appellate authority was taken in appeal to this Tribunal and that appeal was allowed by way of remand. Pursuant to our remand order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held, again, against the assessee by holding 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aborators abroad as consideration for technical know-how/assistance to be used in the manufacture of licensed products in India did not satisfy the twin conditions under Rule 9(1)(c) (relation of payment of licence fee to the imported goods and payment of such fee being a condition of sale of such goods) and, therefore, the same was not includible in the assessable value of the goods imported by the assessee vide Final Order No. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
