2008 (5) TMI 207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri A.V. Naik, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - Revenue is in appeal against the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), vide which the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the respondents herein entered into a Technical Collaboration and Licence Agreement with thei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the imported components. 4. Aggrieved by such order, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. 5. Ld. SDR contended that both the lower authorities have erred in not loading the value of the imported components by the amount of royalty-paid or payable by the respondents. He submits that there is no clause in the agreeme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ufactured out of the components imported by the appellants. The ld. Counsel, submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. as reported at 1995 (76) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), in the case of Tata Yazaki Auto Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai, as reported at 2007 (208) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.-Mumbai....