The undisputed facts which arc to be numbericed for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are as follows To cater to the needs of the users of raw asbestos, the MMTC calls for global tender and after identifying foreign supplier it purchases the raw asbestos in bulk which is sold in high seas sales to various users of raw asbestos for which the MMTC charges apart from the sale companysideration paid by it to the foreign buyer an additional sum as service charges.
On applications being made for refund based on a claim that service charges companylectedby the MMTC cannot be subjected lo levy of cuiilomis duly, the appellant, who suffered adverse orders before all the authorities below including the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, has preferred these appeals before us.
Material on record, on the companytrary, shows that the MMTC on its own goes through the process of identifying the foreign supplier from whom it purchases the goods in question on its own without representing any particular buyer in India and sells the same to the purchaser on high seas .sales basis to the Indian buyers like the appellant.
It is an admitted fact that there is numberrelationship of a principal and an agent between the purchaser like the appellant and the MMTC.
The appellant is.
It is number possible to accept this argument of the appellant for more than one reason.
