Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)
M/S. Petro Araldite Pvt. Ltd vs Cc, Chennai on 21 December, 2015 cites

Union Of India And Ors vs Mahindra And Mah1Ndra Ltd. Bombay on 8 March, 1995

6. We have carefully considered the submissions by both sides and perused the records. We find that this is the second round of litigation, where the Tribunal in 2002 had remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to re-examine the case laws and to pass fresh orders, taking into consideration of various case laws relied by the appellants in Daewoo Motors India Ltd., (supra), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.(supra), Essar Gujart Ltd.(supra) and Maruti Udyog Ltd. Gurgaon (supra). Whereas, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to give any finding of the directions of the Tribunal order to examine the case laws. We also find that it is full of factual errors and mistakes in the operative portion of the order, the Commissioner (Appeals) stated the appeal filed by the department is allowed when there was no revenue appeal pending before him and it is only the assessees appeal, which was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals). At page-7 of the order where the appellate authority directed for addition of US$ 75000 instead of US$ 7,15,000. This clearly shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the appeals in denovo on merits and not given any clear findings as directed by this Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

Daewoo Motors India Ltd. vs Cc on 16 March, 1998

7. On merits, we find that the imports relates to the period 2001. On the issue of addition of lumpsum fee towards technical knowhow, drawing and design fee and engineering services fee, this Tribunal as well as well as Honble Apex Court has already settled the issue. This Tribunal in the case of Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. (supra) on identical issue has allowed the appeal and also that the Tribunal in the case of Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) also allowed the appeal.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Custom (Import) Mumbai ... vs Can Pack (India) Pvt. Ltd. L18/25-18/28 ... on 4 September, 2015

8. The ratio of the above Apex Court judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case also lumpsum fee related to technical knowhow, drawing and design fee and engineering services fee, which is not related to the imported capital goods. The adjudicating authority itself in his order clearly says that the relationship of the joint venture company where the relationship between the supplier and the appellant has not influenced the price of import and in fact accepted the transaction value except for loading the technical knowhow fee, drawing and design fee and engineering services fee. However, we find that the Honble Supreme Court LB decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Can Pack India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) has upheld the Tribunals order and dismissed the Revenue appeal. By respectfully following the Apex Court decision and also maintaining this Tribunals decision referred above, we hold that the technical knowhow, drawing and design fee and engineering services fee, are not includable in the transaction value of the imported goods. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - H L Dattu - Full Document
1