2017 (3) TMI 1115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Viswanathan, Advocate, for respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No. 665/2006/MCH/DC/Gr.III/06 dated 8.1.2007. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the issue involved in this case is regarding enhancement of value of the imported goods, as it appeared to the Revenue authoritie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ply identical or similar goods to any other person in India or any other country. In such a situation, the lower authority should not have insisted on test values as required under Rule 4(3)(b) rather he should have explored the valuations under subsequent Rules, i.e. Rule 5 to 8, based on documents available on records. In his order, the lower authority has enhanced the value by 50%, but the spec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts, their basis of pricing is cost production/purchase plus 10% mark-up. In the appeal, they have also submitted detail chart in this regard for various items imported by them from their related supplier. In the ground of appeal, they have also cited one incident of import by them by one unrelated company M/s. David Zau and Company of China for which the price approximate to the value of the same....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellants reply to the questionnaire, there is no payment on account of royalty/technical knowhow fees. The appellants are involved in manufacture of final products using the imported items. The pricing of the same is taken on the basis of cost of production/purchase plus 10% markup. The same appears to be reasonable. In view of earlier discussions, I set aside the order of the lower authority ....