2017 (10) TMI 574

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heir related group of companies (hereinafter referred to as "Foreign Company"). Being related persons, the same was forwarded to SVB, Customs House, Chennai. Based on the reference, case was registered and show-cause notice was issued. After due process of law, the original authority accepted the transaction value. Against this, the department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order observed that the sale agreement indicated additional amounts and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The appellant is thus before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of appellant, learned counsel Shri Hari Radha Radhakrishnan submitted that appellant is aggrieved by a finding entered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in page 5 of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s between -17.85 to 24.65%. The appellant had also justified the price difference stating that some of the components were supplied to M/s. Gamesa [unrelated buyer] in assembled condition, whereas the imports made by the appellant were in SKD/CKD condition and the required assembly was carried out in their factory set up in India. This explanation and evidence provided by the appellant was accepted by the adjudicating authority. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order. 3. The learned Authorised Representative Shri B. Balamurugan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted being an SVB, the adjudicating authority should have looked into the agreement also and the Commissioner (Appeals) has only pointed out th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for part, components or for entire assembly and, therefore, cannot be made the basis. 6. In page 5 of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has adverted Article 19 of the agreement, reproduced the same and observed that this clause indicates that payment to be made to the "Foreign Company" on sale value of the manufacturer article (net of taxes) appears to be logically correct and the said agreement indirectly becomes a condition of sale of the imported goods. He has thus remanded the matter to the original authority. Article 19 appears to be nothing but a standard clause so as to fix the liability for discharging taxes/government dues. We do not find anything in such clause so as to enter a finding that it is a condition of sa....