Agreement made this 6th day of November, 1979 by and between AUTOMOBILES PEUGEOT, 75 avenue de la Grande Armee, PARIS FRANCE, hereinafter referred to as PEUGEOT on the one hand, and MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED, Gateway Building, Appollo Bunder, Bombay 400 039, India hereinafter referred as to M M , on the other hand.
The Division Bench, by Judgment dated 7th and 8th of March, 1991, affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge.
The respondents imported CKD packs and service companyponents for Peugeot from the year 1982 onwards.
Thereafter, the appellants moved this Court in S.L.P. Civil No.
Thereupon the respondents company filed Writ Petition No.
WHEREAS MM is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles of various types fitted with internal companybustion engines, and WHEREAS MM is desirous of improving the utility of the said vehicles by fitting them with an engine manufactured on the basis of latest technology and WHEREAS PEUGEOT as a result of long experience and extensive and companytinuous research and development b the business of manufacture of motor vehicles, has developed or acquired and possesses designs and technical knowledge in the manufacture of an engine designated XDP 4.90 hereinafter referred to as the Engine which is identified in Exhibit A attached hereto and has industrial property rights companysisting of designs, engineering, technological and all other information with respect to the Engine and WHEREAS MM desires, for the purpose of carrying on its business as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, to obtain the right to manufacture, assemble and use the Engine and use the technical knowledge of PEUGEOT and also to have companytinuing technical assistance from PEUGEOT during the period of the Agreement and WHEREAS PEUGEOT is willing to grant the use of its technical knowledge and to assist MM in the manufacture and assembly of the Engine in the manner hereinafter provided Therefore, it is hereby agreed between PEUGEOT and MM as follows A SUPPLY OF PEUGEOT ENGINE TECHNOLOGY 1, As soon as practicable after the effective date of this Agreement PEUGEOT shall furnish to MM companyplete technical know how which shall include specifications, drawings, designs, design data and calculations, techniques, facilities, trade secrets and processes and manufacturing companytrol procedures and methods used by PEUGEOT in the manufacture of the Engine hereinafter referred to as the PEUGEOT Engine Technology so as to enable the manufacture of the Engine by MM IB India and to this intent, will furnish to MM two companyies, one of which will be in the form of tracings and or films, of all of the documentation of the PEUGEOT Engine technology as follows .
81,83,058, respectively.
M. A learned Single Judge by Judgment dated 27.7.1988 quashed the aforesaid orders and also ordered refund of excise duty recovered from the respondents during the period from June, 1984 onwards, after verifying the particulars submitted by the respondents.
Their factories are situated at Bombay, Igatpuri and Nasik.
3203 of 1993 and this Court by Order dated 19.4.1993 granted leaves to the appellants in the following terms Learned Solicitor General submits that he does number assail the judgment of the High Court insofar as it relates to the finding on the question that the seller and the buyer have numberinterest in the business of each other but he assails the judgment on the other question so far as it relates to the question that the price is the sole companysideration for the sale or the offer for sale in Section 14 l a of the Customs Act.
The appellants herein filed Appeal No.
1995 2 SCR 595 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PARIPOORNAN, J. The Union of India, the Collector of Customs, Bombay and the Assistant Collector of Customs, Special Valuation Branch, Bombay are the appellants in this appeal, M s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Bombay are the respondents.
Finally, he held that the invoice value of CKD parts set out in the invoices is number the sole companysideration for the sale of the goods and calling in aid the provisions of section 14 l b read with Rule B of the Customs Valuation Rules, he held that the value of the imported packs shall be raised by 1.5, This was affirmed by the Collector of Customs Appeals by order dated 2.9.1986.
In order to adjudicate the companytroversy raised in this appeal it will be useful to quote the relevant statutory provisions and also the important terms companytained in the main agreement dated 6.11.1979 and the supplemental agreement dated 6.3.1980, executed between the respondents and the foreign companylaborator, stressed by companynsel.
95,27,448, Rs.
The period of agreement was for a duration of 10 years from the date of securing the companysent of the Government of India to the agreement.
K and the appellate order dated 2.9.1986 passed by the Collector of Customs Appeals affirming the said order, evidenced by Ext.
In June, 1984, the Customs Appraising Group referred the question as to the valuation of a companysignment of crankshafts imported, to the Special Valuation branch of the Custom Department.
Article F in the agreement dealt with the subject of supply of CKD packs and service parts.
317 of 1987 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Bombay and assailed the aforesaid orders successfully.
84,17568 and Rs.
Leave granted.
The respondents agreed to pay to the foreign companylaborator in Paris a sum of 15 million French Francs in three installments.
The prayer for the issue of a certificate to appeal to this Court was also declined.
B Page 98 109 of the Paper Book , and the supplemental agreement is dated 6.3.1980 pages 112 114 of the Paper Book .
They entered into a technical know how agreement with M s. Automobile Peugeot, a French companypany, in respect of a diesel engine manufactured by Peugeot and known as IDP 4.90.
The Assistant Collector, after hearing the companypany, issued an order dated 20.9,1985, holding that out of the lumpsum payment made to the respondents M s. Peugeot 15 is attributed towards designs, patents and trade marks, and the circumstances under which CKD packs are imported warrant valuation under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 read With section 14 1 b of the Customs Act and excludes section 14 a of the Act before assessment.
In other words, the lumpsum paid by the respondents under the agreement included an element of price to be settled in regard to the supply of CKD companyponents under the agreement, and the lumpsum must have included an element of payment of royalty also for the products.
It is companymon ground that the respondents remitted the amount so agreed to Peugeot in three installments on 27.5.1980, 15.4,1981 and 18.9.1981, amounting to Rs.
He took the view that the companyposite agreement envisaged supply of CKD packs of companyponents for 5 years, and it is obvious that the price of CKD packs set out in the invoice value is determined after bearing in mind the lumpsum payment made under the agreement.
The original agreement is dated 6,11.1979, Ext.
The respondents are a public limited companypany carrying on business in the manufacture of different types of automobile vehicles.
We heard Sri Dipankar P. Gupta, Solicitor General who appeared for the appellants and Sri Atul Setalvad, Senior Advocate, who appeared for the respondents.
3167 of 1986 in the High Court of Bombay and assailed the order dated 20.9.1985, passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, evidenced by Ext.
The matter herein arises under the Customs Act, 1962.
The respondents filed Writ Petition No.
237 of 1987 before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
