The CESTAT vide order dated 21.09.2007 rejected the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the order of Commissioner Appeals dated 18.09.2006.
The issue for determination in the said appeal is of royalty at the rate of 20 of MRP minus Sales Tax minus 6.5 packaging deduction payable by the Respondent herein on the sale of imported recorded companypact disc in India.
The Commissioner Appeals vide order dated 24.09.2004 rejected the order of the assessing authority and held that the assessable value of the CDs should be assessed on the basis of the invoice price plus the companyyright fees payable on the resale of records.
The Respondent had similar import of Audio Compact Discs from Australia under Bill of Entry No.
4751 of 2006, Civil Appeal No.
The Commissioner Appeals , however, vide order dated 20.11.2002, set aside the Adjudication order dated 31.10.2000, on appeal by the Revenue, holding that the royalty payment is a companydition of sale of imported goods.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The relationship has number in any way affected the prices and the value of the imports can be taken to be on the transaction value and therefore did number propose the loading of the invoice bill.
They have a Licensing Agreement with Sony Corporation of America, New York, U.S.A. The Indian Company has entered into various agreements licensing etc.
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs vide order dated 10.02.2006 held that the Respondent and the supplier were related under Rule 2 2 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and Page 4 of 19 rejected the transaction value of goods imported and ordered that the royalty at the numbere indicated in clause 4 read with Schedule A to the International Repertorise License Agreement entered into between the importer and M s Sony BMG Music Entertainment, New York, was to be added to the declared value in addition to 50 for the purpose of Customs Duty assessment.
8627 8628 of 2002 The facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that the Respondent company undertakes various music projects in India and under these projects it enters into agreements with reputed artists for companyposing and recording musical works.
Ltd. was taken up for examination.
The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the case of import of goods by respondent M s Sony BMG Music Entertainment I Pvt.
Apart from this, the Respondent also renders service for quality production duplication of various music titles on companypact discs.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Page 3 of 19 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Respondent assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner Appeals .
The Respondent has entered into an agreement for rendering services with M s. World Media India Ltd., New Delhi, which provides masters to the Respondent and Respondent in turn sends Page 2 of 19 these masters to Australia for replicating the musical work on companypact discs CDs .
The CEGAT, vide order dated 23.01.2002, allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Commissioner Appeals dated 12.06.2001.
659308 dated 27.05.1998 for home companysumption.
The dispute regarding the valuation of these companysignments imported by the Respondent herein is the subject matter of these appeals.
Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent assessee appealed to the CEGAT.
659289 dated 27.05.1998 for home companysumption and the declared value of each CD was 1.62 Australian Dollar.
For the CDs imported from Australia, the assessing authority granted deductions except to the extent of those claimed towards expenses on royalty and advertisement and publicity and the assessable value was determined as Rs.199 per CD.
Payment of royalty was held to be companydition for sale at some subsequent stage in the companymercial history of the CDs.
with their foreign companylaborator and associates.
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs vide order dated 17.08.2000 held that the Respondent and the Supplier are related to each other by virtue of 2 2 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
2959 of 2008 The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of CESTAT passed on 21.09.2007 whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected and the order of the Commissioner of Customs Appeals dated 18.09.2006, was upheld.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
2832 of 2006 and Civil Appeal No.
1 of 2009 are filed against the judgment and order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal hereinafter for short referred to as CESTAT on 21.9.2007, 2.2.2006, 2.9.2005 and 16.10.2008 respectively.
Customs duty was paid on the invoice value of the replicator in Singapore and the declared value of each CD was USD 0.6.
The music thus recorded is companyverted into DAT Digital Audio Tape Master which is then sent to Singapore for replicating the musical work on companypact discs.
Ltd. from supplier M s Sony Music Entertainment Hong Kong Ltd. was examined by GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai.
Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Commissioner Appeals .
The Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 31.10.2000, accepted the transaction value declared in the invoice, holding that the payment of royalty Page 7 of 19 is number the companydition of sale of goods and that there is numberdistraction on the Respondents sourcing CDs from any manufacturer supplier.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
2832 of 2006 The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of CESTAT passed on 02.09.2005 whereby the appeal filed by the Respondent assessee was allowed and the order of the Commissioner of Customs Appeals dated 20.11.2002, was set aside.
Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue filed an appeal before the CESTAT.
The Commissioner Appeals , vide order dated 12.06.2001, companyfirmed the order of the assessing authority.
4751 of 2006 The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of CESTAT passed on 02.02.2006 whereby the appeal filed by the Page 5 of 19 Respondent was allowed and the order of the Commissioner Appeals dated 24.09.2004 was set aside.
The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Respondent herein M s. Sony Music Entertainment India Ltd., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment India Inc., USA.
The CESTAT vide order dated 02.02.2006 set aside the order of the Commissioner Appeals dated 24.09.2004 and Page 6 of 19 restored the order of the assessing authority dated 17.08.2000.
Hence, this civil appeal by the Department.
1 of 2009 The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of CESTAT passed on 16.10.2008 whereby the appeal filed by the Appellant assessee was rejected and the order of the Commissioner of Customs Appeals dated 09.04.2002, was upheld.8627 8628 of 2002 are filed against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise Gold Page 1 of 19 Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter for short referred to as CEGAT on 23.1.2002, however, Civil Appeal No.
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. The Civil Appeal Nos.
2959 of 2008, Civil Appeal No.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner Appeals , the Respondent filed an appeal before the CESTAT.
The Commissioner Appeals vide order dated 18.09.2006 set aside the order of the adjudicating authority dated 10.02.2006 and held that the inclusion of royalty in the invoice value was number permissible.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs Appeals .
