The main legal point established in the judgment is that royalty payment connected to imported components should be included in the assessable value, as per Rule 9(1)(c) of the Valuation Rules, 1988.

JUDGMENT

KAPADIA, J.

This civil appeal under Section 35L(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is directed against the Order passed by the Central Excise & Customs & Gold Control Tribunal (for short, CEGAT) dated 24.8.01. By the said Order the CEGAT (Tribunal) has dismissed the assessees appeal.

A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is: whether the royalty payment was connected with the imported components of Colour TV and if so whether such royalty payment was includible in the assessable value of such components.

Appellants-assessee is a joint venture of M/s. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., Japan, (for short, MEI). The predecessor of the appellants was M/s. Salora International Ltd. (for short, SIL). In 1993, M/s. SIL had entered into an agreement with M/s. MEI for obtaining technical assistance and know-how. The technical assistance and know-how was assigned by M/s. SIL to the appellants. This was in 1996. In terms of clause 6.01, appellants were required to pay royalty at 3% on net ex-factory sale price of the colour receiver manufactured by them towards technical assistance rendered by MEI. In addition to royalty the appellants were also required to pay U.S.$ 2 lakhs, as lump-sum payment to MEI for transfer of technical know-how. Under the agreement, MEI agreed to assist the appellants by selling the equipment at commercial prices. Under the agreement appellants predecessor imported components of colour receiver from M/s. B.M. Nagaro & Co. who in turn had procured components (bought-out items) from different manufacturers including those in Singapore.

By Adjudication Order NO.6/99 dated 20.5.99, the Adjudicating Authority loaded the value of the said components by 2% and 1.58% for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively. This was in terms of Rule 4(2) and Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 [for short, Valuation Rules, 1988]. The said Order confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order No.683/2000 dated 15.11.2000. The said concurrent findings were also confirmed by the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. According to the impugned judgment, the assessable value of the components were required to be loaded with the cost of royalty payment as under the Agreement the appellants had agreed to pay to MEI a royalty at 3% on the net ex-factory sale price of the colour receiver manufactured by the appellants for the technical assistance rendered by MEI. According to the Tribunal, on bare reading of the Agreement it was clear that the royalty payment was related to components in view of clause 7.02. According to the Tribunal, the technical assistance under the Agreement was related to the components since under clause 7.02 it was stipulated that not only MEI would assist SIL in selling the components but MEI would also assist the appellants in approving the components which were bought-out items. Under the Agreement, samples of bought-out items were to be sent by the appellants to MEI for inspection and quality certification. Under the agreement, the bought-out items (components) could be used in the T.V. only if it was approved by MEI. Under the Agreement, MEI had to approve in writing the quality and the specifications of such bought-out items (components). In the circumstances, the Tribunal took the view that technical assistance extended not only to the supply of components but also to the approval of the components (bought-out items). Further, according to the Tribunal, the amount of royalty had to be included in the price paid for bought-out items (components). For the above reasons, the Tribunal held that royalty payment constituted consideration for technical assistance rendered by MEI and, therefore, the Department was right in including the cost of royalty payment in the assessable value of the components (bought-out items), duly imported. For the above reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the appell