TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could travel beyond the scope of the assessee's appeal and unsettle the original authority's acceptance of the declared invoice value; (ii) Whether lump sum royalty and running royalty paid under the technical assistance agreement were includible in the assessable value of the imported raw materials.
Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could travel beyond the scope of the assessee's appeal and unsettle the original authority's acceptance of the declared invoice value.
Analysis: The reliefs sought in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) were confined to the inclusion of royalty and the loading of future imports. The Department had not filed any appeal against the original authority's acceptance of invoice value. In these circumstances, the appellate authority could not have gone beyond the matters put in issue before it and disturb that part of the order which was not appealed against by the Department.
Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) acted beyond the scope of the appeal, and the order insofar as it disturbed acceptance of the declared invoice value could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether lump sum royalty and running royalty paid under the technical assistance agreement were includible in the assessable value of the imported raw materials.
Analysis: The agreements showed that the lump sum payment and royalty were linked to manufacture and sale of products in India, not to the imported raw materials. The agreements did not require the appellant to purchase raw materials only from the related foreign supplier. Rule 10(1)(c) applied only where royalties or licence fees were payable as a condition of sale of the imported goods and bore a nexus with those goods. Here, the nexus was with post-import manufacture, and the royalty was not a condition of sale of the imported goods. The cited precedents were treated as supporting this position.
Conclusion: The lump sum royalty and running royalty were not includible in the assessable value of the imported goods.
Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was set aside, the acceptance of declared value was restored, and the addition of royalty and lump sum fees to the assessable value was rejected, leaving the appeal allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Royalty or licence fees are includible in the assessable value of imported goods only when they are payable as a condition of sale and have a direct nexus with the imported goods; payments relating solely to manufacture or sale of finished products in India are not so includible.
TaxTMI 
