TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands case for detailed review, citing lack of reasoning. Appellant's submissions to be thoroughly considered.</h1> <h3>M/s Merck Life Science Private Limited Versus C. C-Bangalore-Cus</h3> M/s Merck Life Science Private Limited Versus C. C-Bangalore-Cus - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the ICIN price list followed by the foreign supplier for imports by the appellant can be accepted for valuation purposes.2. Whether the relationship between the foreign supplier and the appellant influenced the pricing mechanism.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Acceptance of ICIN Price List for Valuation:The appellant argued that the ICIN prices, determined by the foreign supplier, were based on commercial considerations and not influenced by their relationship. The ICIN price list provided fixed discounts for the appellant, unlike the Global Price List, which allowed for negotiable discounts for unrelated buyers. The original authority found that the ICIN prices, on average, resulted in a 32% discount, which was lower than the previously accepted 45% discount. However, it concluded without clear reasoning that discounts over 45% were not acceptable.The tribunal noted that the original authority had accepted the appellant's contentions during discussions but failed to provide a rationale for rejecting declared values exceeding a 45% discount. The tribunal emphasized the need for a speaking order with clear reasoning, which was absent in the original authority's decision.2. Influence of Relationship on Pricing Mechanism:The appellant contended that the relationship with the foreign supplier did not influence the pricing mechanism, as the discounts were commercially justified. They cited various case laws supporting the notion that discounts are a commercially acceptable measure and that a distributor's commercial level differs from that of an independent buyer.The original authority, however, did not provide evidence or reasoning to show that the relationship affected the pricing. Both the lower and appellate authorities appeared to have a preconceived notion against allowing discounts over 45%, without thoroughly examining the facts or the appellant's arguments.Conclusion and Remand:The tribunal found that neither the lower authority nor the appellate authority rendered justice to the issue. The decisions lacked detailed reasoning and did not address the appellant's submissions adequately. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for fresh reconsideration by the original authority. The original authority was directed to consider all submissions and relevant case laws and to issue a speaking and reasoned order within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 