WEP PERIPHERALS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against Order -in -Original 2000/2004 dated 30 -3 -2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Chennai).

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows : The appellants M/s. WeP Peripherals, Mysore are the manufacturers of computer printers and parts and accessories which are all excisable commodities. They imported various parts of computer printers including the impugned goods namely shuttle assembly imported under Bill of Entry dated 21st January 2003. The Revenue conducted certain investigations and found that the shuttle assembly is not entitled for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002 -Cus., dated 1 -3 -2002 as the said assembly had many built in Populated Printed Circuit Boards (PPCB) and as per the explanation given in Sl. No. 276 of the said Notification, the exemption will not be available in the case of an assembly which includes PPCBs. It was further noticed that the appellants paid royalty on the printers manufactured by them in terms of the agreement entered with the foreign licensor. The Revenue felt that they were required to include the value of the royalty in the assessable value of shuttle assembly imported by them. Even before the issue of show cause notice, they paid an amount of Rs. 1,03,82,001/ - on 4 -3 -2003. Revenue issued show cause notice dated 7 -7 -2003 proposing demand of differential duty along with interest under Section 28AB and further penal action under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the above mentioned violations. Apart from inclusion of royalty, the valuation of the impugned goods was under dispute. The Commissioner of Customs subsequently, passed the impugned order demanding a differential duty amounting to Rs. 99,66,131/ - along with interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. Equal penalty under Section 114A was also imposed. The appellants are aggrieved over the impugned order and have come before this Tribunal for relief.

(3.) SHRI B.V. Kumar, the learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Reddy learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. The learned advocate urged the following points.