Full Text
Translation output
$-30 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CUSTOM A. 4/2013
M/S VOITH PAPER FABRICS INDIA LTD Petitioner
Through Mr. R. Santhanam, Advocate.
CUSTOM A. 4/2013
M/S VOITH PAPER FABRICS INDIA LTD Petitioner
Through Mr. R. Santhanam, Advocate.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI Respondent
Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harsh Makhija, Advocate.
Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harsh Makhija, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ^ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER o/o 11.10.2013 The Tribunal by the impugned order has refused to condone a delay of217 days in filing ofthe appeal. The Tribunal has noticed that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had remanded the case to the Assessing Officer after recording the following findings;-
ORDER o/o 11.10.2013 The Tribunal by the impugned order has refused to condone a delay of217 days in filing ofthe appeal. The Tribunal has noticed that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had remanded the case to the Assessing Officer after recording the following findings;-
"8. Regarding the issue ofexclusion of the value of the imported components only irrespective of their source of procurement in the royalty calculation formula under TBCH Agreement dated
^ 2.10.2008 and nothing excluded from the royalty calculation formula under
Agreement dated 21.5.2010, I find that the said observations are not relevant in ascertaining whether the payment of royalty by virtue ofthe said Agreements has any nexus with the value of the imported goods. Hence, the said case of
Matsushista is distinguished. Moreover, the Agreements have never referred about any kind of agreement in relation import of raw materials and semi h
2013:DHC:6659-DB finished goods; hence, the conclusion that the payment of royalty on the manufactured goods is deemed to be towards the value of the import of raw materials and semi finished goods is neither evinced in the said Agreement nor in any other suitable form. Hence, there is a greater need for fiirther scrutiny, in the light of^ above.
Furthermore the adjudicating officer has come to the following conclusion
"without import of the raw material and semi finished goods for voith, the specified products under the schedule of
TKN cannot be manufactured" at Para 212 of Order-in-Original. This would require corroboration. Therefore the
Order-in-Original is set aside and the legal position prior to issue of Order-in-
Original would prevail, allowing the Department ample time to present a further well considered Order-in-Original on the subject, in duecourse."
It is apparent that initially the appellant was satisfied with the said order but when the proceedings were pending before the original adjudication authority, an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal on second thought. It is also apparent that Revenue has not challenged the order ofCommissioner (Appeals) and has accepted the direction.
In case there is lapse or delay on the part ofthe original adjudicating authority, itis open to the appellant to take appropriate steps.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
OCTOBER 11,2013 st SANJIVKHANNA,J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
Agreement dated 21.5.2010, I find that the said observations are not relevant in ascertaining whether the payment of royalty by virtue ofthe said Agreements has any nexus with the value of the imported goods. Hence, the said case of
Matsushista is distinguished. Moreover, the Agreements have never referred about any kind of agreement in relation import of raw materials and semi h
2013:DHC:6659-DB finished goods; hence, the conclusion that the payment of royalty on the manufactured goods is deemed to be towards the value of the import of raw materials and semi finished goods is neither evinced in the said Agreement nor in any other suitable form. Hence, there is a greater need for fiirther scrutiny, in the light of^ above.
Furthermore the adjudicating officer has come to the following conclusion
"without import of the raw material and semi finished goods for voith, the specified products under the schedule of
TKN cannot be manufactured" at Para 212 of Order-in-Original. This would require corroboration. Therefore the
Order-in-Original is set aside and the legal position prior to issue of Order-in-
Original would prevail, allowing the Department ample time to present a further well considered Order-in-Original on the subject, in duecourse."
It is apparent that initially the appellant was satisfied with the said order but when the proceedings were pending before the original adjudication authority, an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal on second thought. It is also apparent that Revenue has not challenged the order ofCommissioner (Appeals) and has accepted the direction.
In case there is lapse or delay on the part ofthe original adjudicating authority, itis open to the appellant to take appropriate steps.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
OCTOBER 11,2013 st SANJIVKHANNA,J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JUDGMENT