9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - Revenue is in appeal against the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), vide which the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the respondents herein entered into a Technical Collaboration and Licence Agreement with their foreign Collaborator to manufacture an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such order, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. 5. Ld. SDR contended that both the lower authorities have erred in not loading the value of the imported components by the amount of royalty-paid or payable by the respondents. He submits that there is no clause in the agreement providing exclusion of cost of imported com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. The ld. Counsel, submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. as reported at 1995 (76) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), in the case of Tata Yazaki Auto Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai, as reported at 2007 (208) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.-Mumbai) and in the case of Sony Music Entertainment Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), in this regard are well reasoned one and the conclusion arrived at by him is correct and does not require any interference. As long as the payment of royalty, is not a condition of sale of the goods being valued, the provisions of Rule 9(1)(c) will not apply. Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence. 9. Accordingly, the concurrent findings arrived at by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
