Technical know-how royalty enters assessable value, but only for licensed products; demand and penalty required re-quantification.

Royalty paid as consideration for technical know-how forms part of the cost of production and is includible in assessable value under the cost-based valuation method, even if quantified with reference to net sales; the mode of computation does not alter its character. The addition cannot extend to products outside the scope of the licence agreement, so the demand must be re-quantified for covered goods only. Penalty under Section 11AC was sustained for the includible portion, while the demand beyond the normal limitation period was set aside to the extent indicated.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether royalty paid as consideration for technical know-how was includible in the assessable value under the cost-based valuation method, including where payment was linked to sale price; (ii) whether royalty was includible in respect of products not covered by the licence agreement; and (iii) whether penalty under Section 11AC was sustainable, and whether the demand for the period beyond the relevant limit could survive.

Issue (i): whether royalty paid as consideration for technical know-how was includible in the assessable value under the cost-based valuation method, including where payment was linked to sale price.

Analysis: The valuation standards applied in the case treated royalty connected with the product and technical assistance/know-how as part of direct expenses and therefore part of cost of production. The agreement showed that the payment, though calculated on net sales, was in substance consideration for transfer of technology and know-how, while use of the trade mark was only incidental. The mode of quantification on the basis of sale price did not change the character of the payment.

Conclusion: Royalty in the nature of technical know-how fee was includible in the assessable value.

Issue (ii): whether royalty was includible in respect of products not covered by the licence agreement.

Analysis: The agreement defined the licensed products, and the Tribunal distinguished goods falling outside that definition from goods covered by it. Since the royalty was linked to the licensed products, no addition could be made for products not encompassed by the agreement.

Conclusion: Royalty was not includible for products outside the scope of the agreement, and the demand was required to be re-quantified accordingly.

Issue (iii): whether penalty under Section 11AC was sustainable, and whether the demand for the period beyond the relevant limit could survive.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the reasoning that the cost-based valuation principles and the inclusion of technical know-how royalty were applicable for the relevant period, and the plea of bona fide belief was not sufficient to avoid penal consequences on the facts. At the same time, the demand beyond the normal period was set aside to the extent indicated by the Tribunal in light of the limitation discussion.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC was sustained for the includible portion of the demand, while the demand beyond the normal period was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by upholding inclusion of technical know-how royalty in valuation, excluding royalty for non-covered products, and directing re-quantification of demand with corresponding adjustment of penalty, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Royalty paid as consideration for technical know-how is part of the cost of production and is includible in assessable value even if computed with reference to sale price, but the addition cannot extend to goods not covered by the underlying licence agreement.

---