2017 (11) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. Raghavendra, Advocate - For the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.2.2004 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2.   Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant are engaged in the manu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) also rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original, hence, the present appeal. 3.   Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4.   Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the facts and law on the point. He ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entertained a bona fide belief that the royalty amount received by them does not form part of the transaction value as the said amount was received in connection with permitting the agency to use the name 'Farcom' for their trading purposes. He also submitted that there is no suppression on the part of the appellant with intention to evade payment of duty. 5.   On the other hand, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se products are not marketed under the brand name 'Farcom'. Further, we find that since the appellant has not suppressed the facts from the Department and entertained a bona fide belief that the royalty amount is not to be included in the assessable value, therefore the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Further, we find that the appellant is also not liable to pay the penalty in view....