TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alue of the supplier. The enhancement of the value is on the basis that supplier and the respondent are related person, the value charged by the supplier to the third party supply was 120% more than the value charged to the present appellant. Being aggrieved by the order in original No.38/2005 dated 07.03.2005, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal of the respondent, hence the revenue filed the present appeal. 2. Shri Ahibaran, Ld. Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He further submits that the original authority has enhanced the price on the basis of the price at which the independent importer imported the identical goods. He submits tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue seeks to uphold the loading of 120% on the declared invoice value of the respondent only on the ground that the import price of the third parties is higher and taking that as base value sought to be enhanced. It is undisputed fact that the respondent has imported bulk of the goods at distributor list price. In the case of third parties' import also the respondent has received the commission for an amount i.e. distributor list price and the price at which the third parties' sells the goods. The payment of commission by the foreign supplier to the respondent is not under dispute. With this fact, it is clear that the distributor list price and third parties' import price can not be the same. Only on the basis of some stray c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seller shall agree to pay commission of the difference between the Distributor price list and the sale price. In support of their contention, by way of example in the appeal memorandum, the appellants have shown o item i.e, controller and tinier, and the difference of price applicable to one third party, e., MIRC Electronics, vide Invoice No.200401-003/3rd Jan,2004, and if e appellants as per the Distributor comes to US$ 2809/ and they have enclosed statement on commission paid to them by the supplier, in which the said amount is reflected at Pg.27 of the memorandum. The appellants have also submitted confirmation from the Bank regarding payment of the commission. The appellants have relied upon Tribunal decision in the case of Hewlett Pac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacturer. In this case Hon'ble Tribunal also relied upon S.0 decision in the case of Basant Industries,1996(81)ELT 195(3.0), and Mira Exports Pvt. Ltd., 1998(98)ELT 3(S.C). In the case of Technova Imaging Systems, it was held that distributor are recognized to be on a different level compared to the individual importer. I find these decisions are applicable to the present case. In this case the appellants are importing goods from the supplier for stock and sale basis, and the same can not be compared to third party stray imports in view of Tribunal decision in the case of Hewlett Packard Ltd„ referred earlier. The appellant is acting both as the Distributor of the supplier's products, and they also import for sale to cus....