The undisputed facts which are 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 companylected by the MMTC cannot be subjected to levy of customs duty, 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.
To attract this exclusion, the appellant seeks to rely upon Interpretative Note to Rule 9 which reads thus In Rule 9 1 a i , the terms buying companymission means fees paid by an importer to his agent for the service of representing him abroad in the purchase of the goods being valued.
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.
The appellant wants this Court to firstly equate service companymission to buying companymission, then on this basis to treat MMTC as an agent.
It is an admitted fact that there is numberrelationship of a principal and an agent between the purchaser like the appellant and the MMTC.
It is number possible to accept this argument of the appellant for more than one reason.
