M/S Abb Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 30 October, 2012
The learned Counsel submits that net sale value has been defined in clause 7.05 and excludes the elements specified therein, particularly CIF price and import duties of raw materials, intermediate goods, parts and other components purchased from Lord (foreign supplier) and the landed cost of imported components irrespective of the source of procurement including ocean freight, insurance and customs duties. These two exclusions make it abundantly clear that royalty is required to be paid only on the indigenous value addition that is taking place and it has nothing to do with the imported goods procured by the appellant either from the Lord or from anywhere else. In these circumstances, the conclusion of the lower appellate authority that the relationship has influenced the prices of the raw materials does not stand the scrutiny of law and accordingly, the impugned order merits to be set aside. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. Vs. CC (Import), Mumbai 2013 (288) ELT 296 (Tri-Mumbai), CC (Import), Mumbai Vs. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. -2013 (292) ELT 403 (Tri-Mumbai) and Foseco India Ltd. Vs. CC (Import), Nhava Sheva 2014-TIOL-552-CESTAT-Mum in support of the above contention in addition to certain other decisions. In the light of these submissions, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.