9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods for discharging the duty. 2. The Ld. Authorised Representative Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram appeared and argued for the Department. It is submitted that an earlier Order-in-Original No. 6585/2006 dated 20.12.2012 in respect of valuation of goods imported by Respondent was initially investigated by SVB and an order was issued accepting the invoice value of the imported goods. Against this order, the Department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order No. CC581/2009, the Commissioner (Appeals), rejected the appeal of the Department. The same was accepted by the Department. The Respondent then filed fresh letter calling for revision of the order with necessary documents. In such periodical review, the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Technical / Trade Mark Agreement and is also required to look at the pricing arrangement between the buyer and his foreign collaborator. In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has been misled by the terms in the agreement. The authorities below ought to have looked into the fact that the appellant has incurred the burden of paying the Royalty and Technical know how Fees to the foreign supplier. Therefore, the same has to be included in the assessable value. The Ld. Authorized Representative prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4.1 The Ld. Counsel for the respondent/importer Shri M. Kannan appeared and argued for the respondent. It is submitted that the issue relates to whether the payment of royalty and lumpsum fee are inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 1275/2013 dated 16.09.2013. Aggrieved by the such Order-in-Appeal, the department has now filed the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 5.1 The department having not filed any appeal before the Tribunal against Order-in-Appeal No.581/2009 dated 29.06.2009, and having accepted that invoice price will be the value for assessment the department cannot now seek to file an appeal in respect of impugned Order-In-Appeal No.1275/2013 dt.16.09.2013 inasmuch as the impugned order seeks to follow the previous Order in Appeal dated 29.06.2009. 5.2 It is submitted, that the respondent/importer is at liberty to source the components from the approved manufacturers directly and they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All the above will show that the royalty/technical know how fees is not a condition of sale of goods. 5.8 It is submitted, that the payment of lumpsum relates to technical knowhow and the same is for post import activity and not related to the goods imported. 5.9 The payment of royalty at 5% on 90% of net sales price of domestic sales and export sales of the finished products and are not dependent on the imported goods which can be evidenced on the following grounds; i. The respondent is free to import the components from both their principal and other independent third parties across the world. ii. There is no influence in pricing between the respondent and their principal. iii. The technical knowhow is for the post import (manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
