TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming the order of the adjudicating authority took the view that fee for transfer of know-how and also for assembling and start up of the plant are to be added to the assessable value of the imported plant and machinery. The above finding is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the importer. 2. Polar Marmo Agglomerates Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was engaged in the activity of developing, inter alia, Agglomerated Marble Slabs and Agglomerated Marble Tiles. For the purpose of developing agglomerated stones the appellant entered into a foreign collaboration agreement dated 20-6-89 with M/s. Breton S.P.A. Industria Meccanica, having its registered office in Italy. In terms of the collaboration agreement Bre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Commissioner has mis-interpreted the terms of the contract and wrongly applied the ratio of Essar Gujarat in this case. According to the appellant the case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. v. CCE C, Bhubaneswar, 2000 (116) E.L.T. 422 and that of this Tribunal in CC, Mumbai v. Rockland Building Materials Ltd., 2000 (115) E.L.T. 228. The appellant submits that agreement to purchase the plant and machinery, agreement regarding assembling and start-up of the plant and agreement for transfer of technical know-how licence are three different parts of the collaboration agreement dated 20-6-89. It is pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chinery. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in adding know-how fee as well as assembling and start-up fee to the value of the plant and machinery. 4. In Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. the Apex Court has held that if the seller has undertaken to erect or assemble the machinery after its importation into India and levied certain charges for rendering such service the price paid therefor shall not be liable to be included in the value of the goods if it has been paid separately and is clearly distinguishable from the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods. 5. In CC (Prev.), Ahmedabad v. Essar Gujarat Ltd., 1996 (88) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.) the Supreme Court interpreting the terms of the agreement took the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
