TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (6) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 296/2003, dated 16-7-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The appellants are the branch office of a foreign supplier namely Montronix Inc USA. The appellants have imported tool monitoring system and parts thereof from the Principal Company. There are third party import....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, should be upheld. 6. We have gone through the records of the case. The appellants have a branch office of M/s. Montronics. There is very clear evidence that the transaction between them is not at arm's length. This can be seen clearly from the price variation between the price charged to the appellants and that to third party importer. For Example, an item which costs 1000 US $ for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omer includes - (i) Installation charges viz., installation, commissioning, system fine tuning, post installation audits, visits on Customer's request, visits during warranty period, warranty coverage for hardwares etc. (ii) Training Customer's team on operational usage, maintenance, to derive benefits; and (iii) PLC and software modification cages. Further they have explained that the price t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rage difference of price between the appellant and third party import is to the tune of 148%. Since the appellant incurs certain expenses as mentioned earlier, the adjudicating authority allowed a benefit of 30% of the difference of 148% and decided to load the assessable value by 100%. The reasoning of the adjudicating authority is quite sound. The same has been endorsed by the Commissioner (Appe....