2007 (3) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated April 2, 1990, between the said two companies. That Technical collaboration agreement provided for import of capital goods, raw materials, intermediates etc. along with transfer of technical know-how and technical assistance for upgradation of the respondent's manufacturing plant in India. The respondent is a manufacturer of leather chemical products. Respondent entered into three agreements particulars of which are given at page 36 of the paper book. One of the agreement is called Technical Collaboration Agreement. The other two agreements pertain to import of seeds. According to the technical collaboration agreement the respondent was to import raw materials for manufacture of leather chemical products. The Department called upon t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 5.By order dated 31-12-1997 passed by the Collector of Customs (A) it was held that the technical know-how charges were required to be loaded to the value of raw materials. It was further held that though the two companies were related their relationship did not influence the value of the capital goods. It was further held that since the said two companies were related valuation should be done under Rule 4(2)(a) and (b) in the matter of computing the assessable value of the raw material. 6.Aggrieved by the decision of the Collector of Customs (A) the respondent herein went in appeal to CEGAT. By the impugned judgment it was held that both the companies are related to each other. The Tribunal recorded the admission made by the Advoc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The entire finding of the adjudicating authority is based on the premise that the two companies are not related. That premise got eliminated when, before the appellate authority, the Advocate for the assessee fairly stated that the respondent company and M/s. Sandoz Quinn were related. Secondly, in the present case three agreements were entered into by respondent herein with three different companies, one of which was M/s. Sandoz Quinn. Once it is conceded on behalf of the respondents that the two companies are related the matter takes a different complexion. It is in this light that the matter needs de novo reconsideration. The first two agreements pertain to import of seeds. The third agreement pertains to technical collaboration. The th....